linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] mm: rework memcg kernel stack accounting

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: <19CD1E5B-CB86-493A-8BA6-7389E36291B4@amacapital.net>
Date:   Wed, 15 Aug 2018 10:37:28 -0700
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:     Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
Cc:     Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, kernel-team@...com,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, luto@...nel.org,
        Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@...il.com>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] mm: rework memcg kernel stack accounting



> On Aug 15, 2018, at 10:32 AM, Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 10:26 AM Roman Gushchin <guro@...com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 10:12:42AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>>> On Aug 15, 2018, at 9:55 AM, Roman Gushchin <guro@...com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 12:39:23PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 05:36:19PM -0700, Roman Gushchin wrote:
>>>>>> @@ -224,9 +224,14 @@ static unsigned long *alloc_thread_stack_node(struct task_struct *tsk, int node)
>>>>>>       return s->addr;
>>>>>>   }
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> +    /*
>>>>>> +     * Allocated stacks are cached and later reused by new threads,
>>>>>> +     * so memcg accounting is performed manually on assigning/releasing
>>>>>> +     * stacks to tasks. Drop __GFP_ACCOUNT.
>>>>>> +     */
>>>>>>   stack = __vmalloc_node_range(THREAD_SIZE, THREAD_ALIGN,
>>>>>>                    VMALLOC_START, VMALLOC_END,
>>>>>> -                     THREADINFO_GFP,
>>>>>> +                     THREADINFO_GFP & ~__GFP_ACCOUNT,
>>>>>>                    PAGE_KERNEL,
>>>>>>                    0, node, __builtin_return_address(0));
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> @@ -246,12 +251,41 @@ static unsigned long *alloc_thread_stack_node(struct task_struct *tsk, int node)
>>>>>> #endif
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> +static void memcg_charge_kernel_stack(struct task_struct *tsk)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_VMAP_STACK
>>>>>> +    struct vm_struct *vm = task_stack_vm_area(tsk);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +    if (vm) {
>>>>>> +        int i;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +        for (i = 0; i < THREAD_SIZE / PAGE_SIZE; i++)
>>>>>> +            memcg_kmem_charge(vm->pages[i], __GFP_NOFAIL,
>>>>>> +                      compound_order(vm->pages[i]));
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +        /* All stack pages belong to the same memcg. */
>>>>>> +        mod_memcg_page_state(vm->pages[0], MEMCG_KERNEL_STACK_KB,
>>>>>> +                     THREAD_SIZE / 1024);
>>>>>> +    }
>>>>>> +#endif
>>>>>> +}
>>>>> 
>>>>> Before this change, the memory limit can fail the fork, but afterwards
>>>>> fork() can grow memory consumption unimpeded by the cgroup settings.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Can we continue to use try_charge() here and fail the fork?
>>>> 
>>>> We can, but I'm not convinced we should.
>>>> 
>>>> Kernel stack is relatively small, and it's already allocated at this point.
>>>> So IMO exceeding the memcg limit for 1-2 pages isn't worse than
>>>> adding complexity and handle this case (e.g. uncharge partially
>>>> charged stack). Do you have an example, when it does matter?
>>> 
>>> What bounds it to just a few pages?  Couldn’t there be lots of forks in flight that all hit this path?  It’s unlikely, and there are surely easier DoS vectors, but still.
>> 
>> Because any following memcg-aware allocation will fail.
>> There is also the pid cgroup controlled which can be used to limit the number
>> of forks.
>> 
>> Anyway, I'm ok to handle the this case and fail fork,
>> if you think it does matter.
> 
> Roman, before adding more changes do benchmark this. Maybe disabling
> the stack caching for CONFIG_MEMCG is much cleaner.
> 
> 

Unless memcg accounting is colossally slow, the caching should be left on. vmalloc() isn’t inherently slow, but vfree() is, since we need to do a global broadcast TLB flush after enough vfree() calls.