[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALvZod7v-CC1XipLAerFj1Zp_M=qXZq6MzDL4pubJMTRCsMFNw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2018 11:34:29 -0800
From: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc: Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>,
Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>,
Jozsef Kadlecsik <kadlec@...ckhole.kfki.hu>,
Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>,
Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org,
coreteam@...filter.org, bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
syzbot+7713f3aa67be76b1552c@...kaller.appspotmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] netfilter: account ebt_table_info to kmemcg
On Sat, Dec 29, 2018 at 2:06 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Sat 29-12-18 10:52:15, Florian Westphal wrote:
> > Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > On Fri 28-12-18 17:55:24, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> > > > The [ip,ip6,arp]_tables use x_tables_info internally and the underlying
> > > > memory is already accounted to kmemcg. Do the same for ebtables. The
> > > > syzbot, by using setsockopt(EBT_SO_SET_ENTRIES), was able to OOM the
> > > > whole system from a restricted memcg, a potential DoS.
> > >
> > > What is the lifetime of these objects? Are they bound to any process?
> >
> > No, they are not.
> > They are free'd only when userspace requests it or the netns is
> > destroyed.
>
> Then this is problematic, because the oom killer is not able to
> guarantee the hard limit and so the excessive memory consumption cannot
> be really contained. As a result the memcg will be basically useless
> until somebody tears down the charged objects by other means. The memcg
> oom killer will surely kill all the existing tasks in the cgroup and
> this could somehow reduce the problem. Maybe this is sufficient for
> some usecases but that should be properly analyzed and described in the
> changelog.
>
Can you explain why you think the memcg hard limit will not be
enforced? From what I understand, the memcg oom-killer will kill the
allocating processes as you have mentioned. We do force charging for
very limited conditions but here the memcg oom-killer will take care
of
Anyways, the kernel is already charging the memory for
[ip,ip6,arp]_tables and this patch adds the charging for ebtables.
Without this patch, as Kirill has described and shown by syzbot, a low
priority memcg can force system OOM.
Shakeel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists