linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: don't account shared file pages in user_reserve

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <54CB8789.9040206@yandex-team.ru>
Date:	Fri, 30 Jan 2015 16:30:49 +0300
From:	Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru>
To:	Andrew Shewmaker <agshew@...il.com>,
	Roman Gushchin <klamm@...dex-team.ru>
CC:	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: don't account shared file pages in user_reserve_pages

On 29.01.2015 23:11, Andrew Shewmaker wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 02:51:27PM +0300, Roman Gushchin wrote:
>> Shared file pages are never accounted in memory overcommit code,
>> so it isn't reasonable to count them in a code that limits the
>> maximal size of a process in OVERCOMMIT_NONE mode.
>>
>> If a process has few large file mappings, the consequent attempts
>> to allocate anonymous memory may unexpectedly fail with -ENOMEM,
>> while there is free memory and overcommit limit if significantly
>> larger than the committed amount (as displayed in /proc/meminfo).
>>
>> The problem is significantly smoothed by commit c9b1d0981fcc
>> ("mm: limit growth of 3% hardcoded other user reserve"),
>> which limits the impact of this check with 128Mb (tunable via sysctl),
>> but it can still be a problem on small machines.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Roman Gushchin <klamm@...dex-team.ru>
>> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
>> Cc: Andrew Shewmaker <agshew@...il.com>
>> Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
>> Cc: Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru>
>> ---
>>   mm/mmap.c | 2 +-
>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/mmap.c b/mm/mmap.c
>> index 7f684d5..151fadf 100644
>> --- a/mm/mmap.c
>> +++ b/mm/mmap.c
>> @@ -220,7 +220,7 @@ int __vm_enough_memory(struct mm_struct *mm, long pages, int cap_sys_admin)
>>   	 */
>>   	if (mm) {
>>   		reserve = sysctl_user_reserve_kbytes >> (PAGE_SHIFT - 10);
>> -		allowed -= min(mm->total_vm / 32, reserve);
>> +		allowed -= min((mm->total_vm - mm->shared_vm) / 32, reserve);
>>   	}
>>
>>   	if (percpu_counter_read_positive(&vm_committed_as) < allowed)
>> --
>> 2.1.0
>
> You're two patches conflict, don't they? Maybe you should resend
> them as a patch series such that they can both be applied?

I think arithmetic overflow is more important. Upper bound 128M
for user reserve makes mis-accounting of shared memory mostly invisible.

>
> Does mm->shared_vm include memory that's mapped MAP_ANONYMOUS in
> conjunction with MAP_SHARED? If so, then subtracting it could
> overcommit the system OVERCOMMIT_NEVER mode.

Yep.

Moreover shared_vm also includes file mappings with MAP_PRIVATE.
It works more likely as "maybe shared", upper bound for "file-rss"
(MM_FILEPAGES).

I think we need here total size of vmas where VM_ACCOUNT is set --
writable private mappings mapped without MAP_NORESERVE or something
like that. But total_vm after limiting with 128Mb gives almost always
the same or similar value. So, let's keep it as is.

-- 
Konstantin

>
> -Andrew
>

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/