linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1] kernel/trace:check the val against the available mem

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: <CAJWu+orx=NZrkAf7x_HqttnrMssmW7DPZOL1fxR=N6D_-fbmtw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 30 Mar 2018 16:38:52 -0700
From:   Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Zhaoyang Huang <huangzhaoyang@...il.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-patch-test@...ts.linaro.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        "open list:MEMORY MANAGEMENT" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] kernel/trace:check the val against the available mem

Hi Steven,

On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 2:42 PM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 17:30:31 -0400
> Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
>
>> I'll take a look at si_mem_available() that Joel suggested and see if
>> we can make that work.
>
> Wow, this appears to work great! Joel and Zhaoyang, can you test this?
>
> -- Steve
>
> diff --git a/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c b/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c
> index a2fd3893cc02..32a803626ee2 100644
> --- a/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c
> +++ b/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c
> @@ -1164,6 +1164,11 @@ static int __rb_allocate_pages(long nr_pages, struct list_head *pages, int cpu)
>         struct buffer_page *bpage, *tmp;
>         long i;
>
> +       /* Check if the available memory is there first */
> +       i = si_mem_available();
> +       if (i < nr_pages)

Does it make sense to add a small margin here so that after ftrace
finishes allocating, we still have some memory left for the system?
But then then we have to define a magic number :-|

> +               return -ENOMEM;
> +

I tested in Qemu with 1GB memory, I am always able to get it to fail
allocation even without this patch without causing an OOM. Maybe I am
not running enough allocations in parallel or something :)

The patch you shared using si_mem_available is working since I'm able
to allocate till the end without a page allocation failure:

bash-4.3# echo 237800 > /d/tracing/buffer_size_kb
bash: echo: write error: Cannot allocate memory
bash-4.3# echo 237700 > /d/tracing/buffer_size_kb
bash-4.3# free -m
             total         used         free       shared      buffers
Mem:           985          977            7           10            0
-/+ buffers:                977            7
Swap:            0            0            0
bash-4.3#

I think this patch is still good to have, since IMO we should not go
and get page allocation failure (even if its a non-OOM) and subsequent
stack dump from mm's allocator, if we can avoid it.

Tested-by: Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>

thanks,

- Joel