linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] kdbus for 4.1-rc1

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

Date:	Fri, 17 Apr 2015 11:19:47 +0200
From:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
To:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc:	David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@...il.com>,
	Tom Gundersen <teg@...m.no>, Havoc Pennington <hp@...ox.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Daniel Mack <daniel@...que.org>,
	Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@...ndz.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] kdbus for 4.1-rc1

On Thu 16-04-15 10:04:17, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 8:01 AM, David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@...il.com> wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
> >> Whose memcg does the pool use?
> >
> > The pool-owner's (i.e., the receiver's).
> >
> >> If it's the receiver's, and if the
> >> receiver can configure a memcg, then it seems that even a single
> >> receiver could probably cause the sender to block for an unlimited
> >> amount of time.
> >
> > How? Which of those calls can block? I don't see how that can happen.
> 
> I admit I don't fully understand memcg, but vfs_iter_write is
> presumably going to need to get write access to the target pool page,
> and that, in turn, will need that page to exist in memory and to be
> writable, which may need to page it in and/or allocate a page.  If
> that uses the receiver's memcg (as it should), then the receiver can
> make it block.  Even if it doesn't use the receiver's memcg, it can
> trigger direct reclaim, I think.

Yes, memcg direct reclaim might trigger but we are no longer waiting for
the OOM victim from non page fault paths so the time is bounded. It
still might a quite some time, though, depending on the amount of work
done in the direct reclaim.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
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/