linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] perf: Add closing sibling events' file descriptors

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: <20200811143424.GD1448395@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 11 Aug 2020 07:34:24 -0700
From:   Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     peterz@...radead.org, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, alexey.budankov@...ux.intel.com,
        adrian.hunter@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] perf: Add closing sibling events' file descriptors

On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 12:47:24PM +0300, Alexander Shishkin wrote:
> Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com> writes:
> 
> >> It didn't. I can't figure out what to charge on the locked memory, as
> >> all that memory is in kernel-side objects. It also needs to make sense
> >
> > I don't see how that makes a difference for the count. It just account
> > bytes. Can you elaborate?
> 
> Right, but which bytes? One byte per event? That's
> arbitrary. sizeof(struct perf_event)? Then, probably also sizeof(struct
> perf_event_context).

Yes the sum of all the sizeofs needed for a perf_event.

> 
> >> as iirc the default MLOCK_LIMIT is quite low, you'd hit it sooner than
> >> the file descriptor limit.
> >
> > For a single process? 
> 
> The above two structs add up to 2288 bytes on my local build. Given the
> default RLIMIT_MEMLOCK of 64k, that's 28 events. As opposed to ~1k
> events if we keep using the RLIMIT_NOFILE. Unless I'm missing your
> point.

Yes that's true. We would probably need to increase the limit to a few
MB at least.

Or maybe use some combination with the old rlimit for compatibility.
The old rlimit would give an implicit extra RLIMIT_NFILE * 2288 limit
for RLIMIT_MEMLOCK. This would only give full compatibility for a single
perf process, but I suspect that's good enough for most users.

-Andi