linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] epoll: account epitem and eppoll

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: <CALvZod6w99KoNNp_DNQegDCYqWvY1ihnnGXnRL7ufiMOkaTyxw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 4 Oct 2017 12:33:14 -0700
From:   Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:     Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] epoll: account epitem and eppoll_entry to kmemcg

>
> I am not objecting to the patch I would just like to understand the
> runaway case. ep_insert seems to limit the maximum number of watches to
> max_user_watches which should be ~4% of lowmem if I am following the
> code properly. pwq_cache should be bound by the number of watches as
> well, or am I misunderstanding the code?
>

You are absolutely right that there is a per-user limit (~4% of total
memory if no highmem) on these caches. I think it is too generous
particularly in the scenario where jobs of multiple users are running
on the system and the administrator is reducing cost by overcomitting
the memory. This is unaccounted kernel memory and will not be
considered by the oom-killer. I think by accounting it to kmemcg, for
systems with kmem accounting enabled, we can provide better isolation
between jobs of different users.