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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 21 Aug 2018 10:22:39 -0700
From:   Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
CC:     Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.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 Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 10:37:28AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> 
> 
> > 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.

It's not.

BTW, is the test, which you used to measure the performance
gains of stack caching, available publicly?

Thanks!