linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] sched/core: Don't use dying mm as active

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]

Date:   Tue, 30 Jul 2019 09:24:39 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Cc:     Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] sched/core: Don't use dying mm as active_mm of
 kthreads

On Mon 29-07-19 17:42:20, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 7/29/19 5:21 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > On Mon, 2019-07-29 at 17:07 -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> >> It was found that a dying mm_struct where the owning task has exited
> >> can stay on as active_mm of kernel threads as long as no other user
> >> tasks run on those CPUs that use it as active_mm. This prolongs the
> >> life time of dying mm holding up some resources that cannot be freed
> >> on a mostly idle system.
> > On what kernels does this happen?
> >
> > Don't we explicitly flush all lazy TLB CPUs at exit
> > time, when we are about to free page tables?
> 
> There are still a couple of calls that will be done until mm_count
> reaches 0:
> 
> - mm_free_pgd(mm);
> - destroy_context(mm);
> - mmu_notifier_mm_destroy(mm);
> - check_mm(mm);
> - put_user_ns(mm->user_ns);
> 
> These are not big items, but holding it off for a long time is still not
> a good thing.

It would be helpful to give a ball park estimation of how much that
actually is. If we are talking about few pages worth of pages per idle
cpu in the worst case then I am not sure we want to find an elaborate
way around that. We are quite likely having more in per-cpu caches in
different subsystems already. It is also quite likely that large
machines with many CPUs will have a lot of memory as well.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs