linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 3/5] [RFC] arm64: Add support for idle bit in swap PTE

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, 6 Aug 2019 13:57:03 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
        Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Brendan Gregg <bgregg@...flix.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Christian Hansen <chansen3@...co.com>, dancol@...gle.com,
        fmayer@...gle.com, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, kernel-team@...roid.com,
        linux-api@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>, minchan@...nel.org,
        namhyung@...gle.com, paulmck@...ux.ibm.com,
        Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>, surenb@...gle.com,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, tkjos@...gle.com,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/5] [RFC] arm64: Add support for idle bit in swap PTE

On Tue 06-08-19 07:14:46, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 12:47:55PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 06-08-19 06:36:27, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 10:42:03AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > On Mon 05-08-19 13:04:49, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> > > > > This bit will be used by idle page tracking code to correctly identify
> > > > > if a page that was swapped out was idle before it got swapped out.
> > > > > Without this PTE bit, we lose information about if a page is idle or not
> > > > > since the page frame gets unmapped.
> > > > 
> > > > And why do we need that? Why cannot we simply assume all swapped out
> > > > pages to be idle? They were certainly idle enough to be reclaimed,
> > > > right? Or what does idle actualy mean here?
> > > 
> > > Yes, but other than swapping, in Android a page can be forced to be swapped
> > > out as well using the new hints that Minchan is adding?
> > 
> > Yes and that is effectivelly making them idle, no?
> 
> That depends on how you think of it.

I would much prefer to have it documented so that I do not have to guess ;)

> If you are thinking of a monitoring
> process like a heap profiler, then from the heap profiler's (that only cares
> about the process it is monitoring) perspective it will look extremely odd if
> pages that are recently accessed by the process appear to be idle which would
> falsely look like those processes are leaking memory. The reality being,
> Android forced those pages into swap because of other reasons. I would like
> for the swapping mechanism, whether forced swapping or memory reclaim, not to
> interfere with the idle detection.

Hmm, but how are you going to handle situation when the page is unmapped
and refaulted again (e.g. a normal reclaim of a pagecache)? You are
losing that information same was as in the swapout case, no? Or am I
missing something?

> This is just an effort to make the idle tracking a little bit better. We
> would like to not lose the 'accessed' information of the pages.
> 
> Initially, I had proposed what you are suggesting as well however the above
> reasons made me to do it like this. Also Minchan and Konstantin suggested
> this, so there are more people interested in the swap idle bit. Minchan, can
> you provide more thoughts here? (He is on 2-week vacation from today so
> hopefully replies before he vanishes ;-)).

We can move on with the rest of the series in the mean time but I would
like to see a proper justification for the swap entries and why they
should be handled special.

> Also assuming all swap pages as idle has other "semantic" issues. It is quite
> odd if a swapped page is automatically marked as idle without userspace
> telling it to. Consider the following set of events: 1. Userspace marks only
> a certain memory region as idle. 2. Userspace reads back the bits
> corresponding to a bigger region. Part of this bigger region is swapped.
> Userspace expects all of the pages it did not mark, to have idle bit set to
> '0' because it never marked them as idle. However if it is now surprised by
> what it read back (not all '0' read back). Since a page is swapped, it will
> be now marked "automatically" as idle as per your proposal, even if userspace
> never marked it explicity before. This would be quite confusing/ambiguous.

OK, I see. I guess the primary question I have is how do you distinguish
Idle page which got unmapped and faulted in again from swapped out page
and refaulted - including the time the pte is not present.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs