linux-kernel - Re: [RFC]: userspace memory reaping

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: <20201015184349.GA3930989@google.com>
Date:   Thu, 15 Oct 2020 11:43:49 -0700
From:   Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc:     Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>, Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
        Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        Tim Murray <timmurray@...gle.com>,
        kernel-team <kernel-team@...roid.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC]: userspace memory reaping

On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 11:20:30AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:

> > > I do have a vague recollection that we have discussed a kill(2) based
> > > approach as well in the past. Essentially SIG_KILL_SYNC which would
> > > not only send the signal but it would start a teardown of resources
> > > owned by the task - at least those we can remove safely. The interface
> > > would be much more simple and less tricky to use. You just make your
> > > userspace oom killer or potentially other users call SIG_KILL_SYNC which
> > > will be more expensive but you would at least know that as many
> > > resources have been freed as the kernel can afford at the moment.
> > 
> > Correct, my early RFC here
> > https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-mm/patch/20190411014353.113252-3-surenb@google.com
> > was using a new flag for pidfd_send_signal() to request mm reaping by
> > oom-reaper kthread. IIUC you propose to have a new SIG_KILL_SYNC
> > signal instead of a new pidfd_send_signal() flag and otherwise a very
> > similar solution. Is my understanding correct?
> 
> Well, I think you shouldn't focus too much on the oom-reaper aspect
> of it. Sure it can be used for that but I believe that a new signal
> should provide a sync behavior. People more familiar with the process
> management would be better off defining what is possible for a new sync
> signal.  Ideally not only pro-active process destruction but also sync
> waiting until the target process is released so that you know that once
> kill syscall returns the process is gone.

If we approach with signal, I am not sure we need to create new signal
rather than pidfd and fsync(2) semantic.

Furthermore, process_madvise makes the work in the caller context but
signal might work somewhere else context depending on implemenation(
oom reaper or CPU resumed the task). I am not sure it it fulfils Suren's
requirement.

One more thing to think over: Even though we spent some overhead to
read /proc/pid/maps, we could make zapping in parallel in userspace
with multi thread approach. I am not sure what's the win since Suren
also care about zapping performance.