[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180504162209.GB26573@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 4 May 2018 18:22:09 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
peterz@...radead.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, mingo@...nel.org,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, keescook@...omium.org, riel@...hat.com,
tglx@...utronix.de, kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com,
marcos.souza.org@...il.com, hoeun.ryu@...il.com,
pasha.tatashin@...cle.com, gs051095@...il.com, dhowells@...hat.com,
rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] memcg: Replace mm->owner with mm->memcg
On 05/04, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> writes:
>
> > I'd vote for the change in exec_mmap(). This way mm_init_memcg() can just
> > nullify mm->memcg.
>
> There is at least one common path where we need the memory control group
> properly initialized so memory allocations don't escape the memory
> control group.
>
> do_execveat_common
> copy_strings
> get_arg_page
> get_user_pages_remote
> __get_user_pages_locked
> __get_user_pages
> faultin_page
> handle_mm_fault
> count_memcg_event_mm
> __handle_mm_fault
> handle_pte_fault
> do_anonymous_page
> mem_cgroup_try_charge
>
> I am surprised I can't easily find more. Apparently in load_elf_binary
> we call elf_mmap after set_new_exec and install_exec_creds, making
> a gracefull recovery from elf_mmap failures impossible.
>
> In any case we most definitely need the memory control group properly
> setup before exec_mmap.
Confused ...
new_mm->memcg has no effect until exec_mmap(), why it can't be NULL ?
and why do you think mem_cgroup_try_charge() can use the wrong memcg
in this case?
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists