linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/5] memcg/kmem: switch to white list policy

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20151109201218.GP31308@esperanza>
Date:	Mon, 9 Nov 2015 23:12:18 +0300
From:	Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...tuozzo.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
CC:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	<cgroups@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] memcg/kmem: switch to white list policy

On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 02:32:53PM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 10:27:47PM +0300, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> > Of course, we could rework slab merging so that kmem_cache_create
> > returned a new dummy cache even if it was actually merged. Such a cache
> > would point to the real cache, which would be used for allocations. This
> > wouldn't limit slab merging, but this would add one more dereference to
> > alloc path, which is even worse.
> 
> Hmmm, this could be me not really understanding but why can't we let
> all slabs to be merged regardless of SLAB_ACCOUNT flag for root memcg
> and point to per-memcg slabs (may be merged among them but most likely

Because we won't be able to distinguish kmem_cache_alloc calls that
should be accounted from those that shouldn't. The problem is if two
caches

	A = kmem_cache_create(...)

and

	B = kmem_cache_create(...)

happen to be merged, A and B will point to the same kmem_cache struct.
As a result, there is no way to distinguish

	kmem_cache_alloc(A)

which we want to account from

	kmem_cache_alloc(B)

which we don't.

> won't matter) for !root.  We're indirecting once anyway, no?

If kmem accounting is not used, we aren't indirecting. That's why I
don't think we can use dummy kmem_cache struct for merged caches, where
we could store __GFP_ACCOUNT flag.

Thanks,
Vladimir
--
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/