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:   Tue, 26 Dec 2017 19:38:13 +0900
From:   Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
To:     wei.w.wang@...el.com, willy@...radead.org
Cc:     virtio-dev@...ts.oasis-open.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        qemu-devel@...gnu.org, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, mst@...hat.com,
        mhocko@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        mawilcox@...rosoft.com, david@...hat.com, cornelia.huck@...ibm.com,
        mgorman@...hsingularity.net, aarcange@...hat.com,
        amit.shah@...hat.com, pbonzini@...hat.com,
        liliang.opensource@...il.com, yang.zhang.wz@...il.com,
        quan.xu0@...il.com, nilal@...hat.com, riel@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v20 4/7] virtio-balloon: VIRTIO_BALLOON_F_SG

Wei Wang wrote:
> On 12/25/2017 10:51 PM, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > Wei Wang wrote:
> >>>>>> @@ -173,8 +292,15 @@ static unsigned fill_balloon(struct
> >>>>>> virtio_balloon *vb, size_t num)
> >>>>>>          while ((page = balloon_page_pop(&pages))) {
> >>>>>>            balloon_page_enqueue(&vb->vb_dev_info, page);
> >>>>>> +        if (use_sg) {
> >>>>>> +            if (xb_set_page(vb, page, &pfn_min, &pfn_max) < 0) {
> >>>>>> +                __free_page(page);
> >>>>>> +                continue;
> >>>>>> +            }
> >>>>>> +        } else {
> >>>>>> +            set_page_pfns(vb, vb->pfns + vb->num_pfns, page);
> >>>>>> +        }
> >>>>> Is this the right behaviour?
> >>>> I don't think so. In the worst case, we can set no bit using
> >>>> xb_set_page().
> >>>>>                                 If we can't record the page in the xb,
> >>>>> wouldn't we rather send it across as a single page?
> >>>>>
> >>>> I think that we need to be able to fallback to !use_sg path when OOM.
> >>> I also have different thoughts:
> >>>
> >>> 1) For OOM, we have leak_balloon_sg_oom (oom has nothing to do with
> >>> fill_balloon), which does not use xbitmap to record pages, thus no
> >>> memory allocation.
> >>>
> >>> 2) If the memory is already under pressure, it is pointless to
> >>> continue inflating memory to the host. We need to give thanks to the
> >>> memory allocation failure reported by xbitmap, which gets us a chance
> >>> to release the inflated pages that have been demonstrated to cause the
> >>> memory pressure of the guest.
> >>>
> >> Forgot to add my conclusion: I think the above behavior is correct.
> >>
> > What is the desired behavior when hitting OOM path during inflate/deflate?
> > Once inflation started, the inflation logic is called again and again
> > until the balloon inflates to the requested size.
> 
> The above is true, but I can't agree with the following. Please see below.
> 
> > Such situation will
> > continue wasting CPU resource between inflate-due-to-host's-request versus
> > deflate-due-to-guest's-OOM. It is pointless but cannot stop doing pointless
> > thing.
> 
> What we are doing here is to free the pages that were just allocated in 
> this round of inflating. Next round will be sometime later when the 
> balloon work item gets its turn to run. Yes, it will then continue to 
> inflate.
> Here are the two cases that will happen then:
> 1) the guest is still under memory pressure, the inflate will fail at 
> memory allocation, which results in a msleep(200), and then it exists 
> for another time to run.
> 2) the guest isn't under memory pressure any more (e.g. the task which 
> consumes the huge amount of memory is gone), it will continue to inflate 
> as normal till the requested size.
> 

How likely does 2) occur? It is not so likely. msleep(200) is enough to spam
the guest with puff messages. Next round is starting too quickly.

> I think what we are doing is a quite sensible behavior, except a small 
> change I plan to make:
> 
>          while ((page = balloon_page_pop(&pages))) {
> -               balloon_page_enqueue(&vb->vb_dev_info, page);
>                  if (use_sg) {
>                          if (xb_set_page(vb, page, &pfn_min, &pfn_max) < 
> 0) {
>                                  __free_page(page);
>                                  continue;
>                          }
>                  } else {
>                          set_page_pfns(vb, vb->pfns + vb->num_pfns, page);
>                  }
> +             balloon_page_enqueue(&vb->vb_dev_info, page);
> 
> >
> > Also, as of Linux 4.15, only up to VIRTIO_BALLOON_ARRAY_PFNS_MAX pages (i.e.
> > 1MB) are invisible from deflate request. That amount would be an acceptable
> > error. But your patch makes more pages being invisible, for pages allocated
> > by balloon_page_alloc() without holding balloon_lock are stored into a local
> > variable "LIST_HEAD(pages)" (which means that balloon_page_dequeue() with
> > balloon_lock held won't be able to find pages not yet queued by
> > balloon_page_enqueue()), doesn't it? What if all memory pages were held in
> > "LIST_HEAD(pages)" and balloon_page_dequeue() was called before
> > balloon_page_enqueue() is called?
> >
> 
> If we think of the balloon driver just as a regular driver or 
> application, that will be a pretty nature thing. A regular driver can 
> eat a huge amount of memory for its own usages, would this amount of 
> memory be treated as an error as they are invisible to the 
> balloon_page_enqueue?
> 

No. Memory used by applications which consumed a lot of memory in their
mm_struct is reclaimed by the OOM killer/reaper. Drivers try to avoid
allocating more memory than they need. If drivers allocate more memory
than they need, they have a hook for releasing unused memory (i.e.
register_shrinker() or OOM notifier). What I'm saying here is that
the hook for releasing unused memory does not work unless memory held in
LIST_HEAD(pages) becomes visible to balloon_page_dequeue().

If a system has 128GB of memory, and 127GB of memory was stored into
LIST_HEAD(pages) upon first fill_balloon() request, and somebody held
balloon_lock from OOM notifier path from out_of_memory() before
fill_balloon() holds balloon_lock, leak_balloon_sg_oom() finds that
no memory can be freed because balloon_page_enqueue() was never called,
and allows the caller of out_of_memory() to invoke the OOM killer despite
there is 127GB of memory which can be freed if fill_balloon() was able
to hold balloon_lock before leak_balloon_sg_oom() holds balloon_lock.
I don't think that that amount is an acceptable error.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists