linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm/shmem: set default tmpfs size according to memcg limit

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: <20171120120422.a6r4govoyxjbgp7w@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:   Mon, 20 Nov 2017 13:04:22 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
Cc:     Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com>, Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru,
        mka@...omium.org, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
        Cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>, Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/shmem: set default tmpfs size according to memcg limit

On Fri 17-11-17 09:49:54, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 9:41 AM, Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com> wrote:
[...]
> > Of couse that is the best way.
> > But we can not ensue all applications will do it.
> > That's why I introduce a proper defalut value for them.
> >
> 
> I think we disagree on the how to get proper default value. Unless you
> can restrict that all the memory allocated for a tmpfs mount will be
> charged to a specific memcg, you should not just pick limit of the
> memcg of the process mounting the tmpfs to set the default of tmpfs
> mount. If you can restrict tmpfs charging to a specific memcg then the
> limit of that memcg should be used to set the default of the tmpfs
> mount. However this feature is not present in the upstream kernel at
> the moment (We have this feature in our local kernel and I am planning
> to upstream that).

I think the whole problem is that containers pretend to be independent
while they share a non-reclaimable resource. Fix this and you will not
have a problem. I am afraid that the only real fix is to make tmpfs
private per container instance and that is something you can easily
achieve in the userspace.

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs