linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/5] radix-tree: account radix_tree

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]

Message-ID: <20160208060136.GD22202@cmpxchg.org>
Date:	Mon, 8 Feb 2016 01:01:36 -0500
From:	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
To:	Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...tuozzo.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] radix-tree: account radix_tree_node to memory cgroup

On Sun, Feb 07, 2016 at 08:27:34PM +0300, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> Allocation of radix_tree_node objects can be easily triggered from
> userspace, so we should account them to memory cgroup. Besides, we need
> them accounted for making shadow node shrinker per memcg (see
> mm/workingset.c).
> 
> A tricky thing about accounting radix_tree_node objects is that they are
> mostly allocated through radix_tree_preload(), so we can't just set
> SLAB_ACCOUNT for radix_tree_node_cachep - that would likely result in a
> lot of unrelated cgroups using objects from each other's caches.
> 
> One way to overcome this would be making radix tree preloads per memcg,
> but that would probably look cumbersome and overcomplicated.
> 
> Instead, we make radix_tree_node_alloc() first try to allocate from the
> cache with __GFP_ACCOUNT, no matter if the caller has preloaded or not,
> and only if it fails fall back on using per cpu preloads. This should
> make most allocations accounted.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...tuozzo.com>

Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>

I'm not too stoked about the extra slab call. But the preload call
allocates nodes for the worst-case insertion, so you are absolutely
right that charging there would not make sense for cgroup ownership.
And I can't think of anything better to do here.