linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] net: memcg: late association of sock to memcg

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: <CALvZod6njD5Km=qqaQNOwHdPjx+dt=LJRkzosBYUJLEWyYtHMQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 21 Feb 2020 17:54:43 -0800
From:   Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
To:     Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
Cc:     Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: memcg: late association of sock to memcg

On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 5:49 PM Roman Gushchin <guro@...com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 05:04:56PM -0800, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> > If a TCP socket is allocated in IRQ context or cloned from unassociated
> > (i.e. not associated to a memcg) in IRQ context then it will remain
> > unassociated for its whole life. Almost half of the TCPs created on the
> > system are created in IRQ context, so, memory used by suck sockets will
> > not be accounted by the memcg.
> >
> > This issue is more widespread in cgroup v1 where network memory
> > accounting is opt-in but it can happen in cgroup v2 if the source socket
> > for the cloning was created in root memcg.
> >
> > To fix the issue, just do the late association of the unassociated
> > sockets at accept() time in the process context and then force charge
> > the memory buffer already reserved by the socket.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
>
> Hello, Shakeel!
>
> > ---
> >  net/ipv4/inet_connection_sock.c | 7 +++++++
> >  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/net/ipv4/inet_connection_sock.c b/net/ipv4/inet_connection_sock.c
> > index a4db79b1b643..df9c8ef024a2 100644
> > --- a/net/ipv4/inet_connection_sock.c
> > +++ b/net/ipv4/inet_connection_sock.c
> > @@ -482,6 +482,13 @@ struct sock *inet_csk_accept(struct sock *sk, int flags, int *err, bool kern)
> >               }
> >               spin_unlock_bh(&queue->fastopenq.lock);
> >       }
> > +
> > +     if (mem_cgroup_sockets_enabled && !newsk->sk_memcg) {
> > +             mem_cgroup_sk_alloc(newsk);
> > +             if (newsk->sk_memcg)
> > +                     mem_cgroup_charge_skmem(newsk->sk_memcg,
> > +                                     sk_mem_pages(newsk->sk_forward_alloc));
> > +     }
>
> Looks good for me from the memcg side. Let's see what networking people will say...
>
> Btw, do you plan to make a separate patch for associating the socket with the default
> cgroup on the unified hierarchy? I mean cgroup_sk_alloc().
>

Yes. I tried to do that here but was not able to do without adding the
(newsk->sk_cgrp_data.val) check which I can not do in this file as
sk_cgrp_data might not be compiled. I will send a separate patch.

Shakeel