linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] mm/memcg: try harder to decrease [memory,memsw].limit_in

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20180110143121.cf2a1c5497b31642c9b38b2a@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Wed, 10 Jan 2018 14:31:21 -0800
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>
Cc:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
        cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] mm/memcg: try harder to decrease
 [memory,memsw].limit_in_bytes

On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 15:43:17 +0300 Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com> wrote:

> mem_cgroup_resize_[memsw]_limit() tries to free only 32 (SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX)
> pages on each iteration. This makes practically impossible to decrease
> limit of memory cgroup. Tasks could easily allocate back 32 pages,
> so we can't reduce memory usage, and once retry_count reaches zero we return
> -EBUSY.
> 
> Easy to reproduce the problem by running the following commands:
> 
>   mkdir /sys/fs/cgroup/memory/test
>   echo $$ >> /sys/fs/cgroup/memory/test/tasks
>   cat big_file > /dev/null &
>   sleep 1 && echo $((100*1024*1024)) > /sys/fs/cgroup/memory/test/memory.limit_in_bytes
>   -bash: echo: write error: Device or resource busy
> 
> Instead of relying on retry_count, keep retrying the reclaim until
> the desired limit is reached or fail if the reclaim doesn't make
> any progress or a signal is pending.
> 

Is there any situation under which that mem_cgroup_resize_limit() can
get stuck semi-indefinitely in a livelockish state?  It isn't very
obvious that we're protected from this, so perhaps it would help to
have a comment which describes how loop termination is assured?