linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 0/3] mm, proc: Implement /proc/<pid>/totmaps

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:   Mon, 19 Sep 2016 11:16:31 -0400
From:   Robert Foss <robert.foss@...labora.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, Sonny Rao <sonnyrao@...omium.org>
Cc:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
        Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@...il.com>,
        Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
        Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>, ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com,
        jmarchan@...hat.com, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, oleg@...hat.com,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Mateusz Guzik <mguzik@...hat.com>,
        Janis Danisevskis <jdanis@...gle.com>, calvinowens@...com,
        Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
        Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@...onical.com>,
        Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@...il.com>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ben Zhang <benzh@...omium.org>,
        Bryan Freed <bfreed@...omium.org>,
        Filipe Brandenburger <filbranden@...omium.org>,
        Jann Horn <jann@...jh.net>, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
        Jacek Anaszewski <j.anaszewski@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/3] mm, proc: Implement /proc/<pid>/totmaps



On 2016-09-14 05:12 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 13-09-16 13:27:39, Sonny Rao wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 12:12 AM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> wrote:
>>> On Mon 12-09-16 10:28:53, Sonny Rao wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 10:15 AM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon 12-09-16 08:31:36, Sonny Rao wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>>>> but how about the other fields like Swap, Private_Dirty and
>>>>>> Private_Shared?
>>>>>
>>>>> Private_Shared can be pretty confusing as well without the whole context
>>>>> as well see my other emails in the original thread (just to remind
>>>>> shmem/tmpfs makes all this really confusing).
>>>>
>>>> But this is exactly the issue -- RSS is can be just as confusing if
>>>> you don't know something about the application.
>>>
>>> I agree that rss can be confusing but we will not make the situation any
>>> better if we add yet another confusing metric.
>>>
>>>> I think the issue is
>>>> how common that situation is, and you seem to believe that it's so
>>>> uncommon that it's actually better to keep the information more
>>>> difficult to get for those of us who know something about our systems.
>>>>
>>>> That's fine, I guess we just have to disagree here, thanks for look at this.
>>>
>>> I think you should just step back and think more about what exactly
>>> you expect from the counter(s). I believe what you want is an
>>> estimate of a freeable memory when the particular process dies or is
>>> killed. That would mean resident single mapped private anonymous memory
>>> + unlinked single mapped shareable mappings + single mapped swapped out
>>> memory. Maybe I've missed something but it should be something along
>>> those lines. Definitely something that the current smaps infrastructure
>>> doesn't give you, though.
>>
>> Yes your description of what we want is pretty good.  Having a
>> reasonable lower bound on the estimate is fine, though we probably
>> want to break out swapped out memory separately.
>
> Why would you want to separate that?
>
>> Given that smaps
>> doesn't provide this in a straightforward way, what do you think is
>> the right way to provide this information?
>
> I would be tempted to sneak it into /proc/<pid>/statm because that looks
> like a proper place but getting this information is not for free
> performance wise so I am not really sure something that relies on this
> file would see unexpected stalls. Maybe this could be worked around by
> some caching... I would suggest to check who is actually using this file
> (top/ps etc...)

What would this caching look like? Can any information be re-used 
between vma walks?

>
> If this would be unacceptable then a new file could be considered.
>