linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] aio: Add memcg accounting of user used data

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: <7f440fd7-872e-ff17-a152-6ef6dbd10a4e@virtuozzo.com>
Date:   Tue, 5 Dec 2017 18:34:59 +0300
From:   Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:     axboe@...nel.dk, oleg@...hat.com, bcrl@...ck.org, tj@...nel.org,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-aio@...ck.org, jmoyer@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] aio: Add memcg accounting of user used data

On 05.12.2017 18:15, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 05-12-17 13:00:54, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
>> Currently, number of available aio requests may be
>> limited only globally. There are two sysctl variables
>> aio_max_nr and aio_nr, which implement the limitation
>> and request accounting. They help to avoid
>> the situation, when all the memory is eaten in-flight
>> requests, which are written by slow block device,
>> and which can't be reclaimed by shrinker.
>>
>> This meets the problem in case of many containers
>> are used on the hardware node. Since aio_max_nr is
>> a global limit, any container may occupy the whole
>> available aio requests, and to deprive others the
>> possibility to use aio at all. The situation may
>> happen because of evil intentions of the container's
>> user or because of the program error, when the user
>> makes this occasionally
>>
>> The patch allows to fix the problem. It adds memcg
>> accounting of user used aio data (the biggest is
>> the bunch of aio_kiocb; ring buffer is the second
>> biggest), so a user of a certain memcg won't be able
>> to allocate more aio requests memory, then the cgroup
>> allows, and he will bumped into the limit.
> 
> So what happens when we hit the hard limit and oom kill somebody?
> Are those charged objects somehow bound to a process context?

There is exit_aio() called from __mmput(), which waits till
the charged objects complete and decrement reference counter.

If there was a problem with oom in memcg, there would be
the same problem on global oom, as it can be seen there is
no __GFP_NOFAIL flags anywhere in aio code.

But it seems everything is safe.

Kirill