[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201103095247.GH4879@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2020 11:52:47 +0200
From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Christopher Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@...el.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Idan Yaniv <idan.yaniv@....com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
James Bottomley <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.ws>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/6] mm: introduce memfd_secret system call to create
"secret" memory areas
On Mon, Nov 02, 2020 at 06:51:09PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > Assume you have a system with quite some ZONE_MOVABLE memory (esp. in
> > > virtualized environments), eating up a significant amount of !ZONE_MOVABLE
> > > memory dynamically at runtime can lead to non-obvious issues. It looks like
> > > you have plenty of free memory, but the kernel might still OOM when trying
> > > to do kernel allocations e.g., for pagetables. With CMA we at least know
> > > what we're dealing with - it behaves like ZONE_MOVABLE except for the owner
> > > that can place unmovable pages there. We can use it to compute statically
> > > the amount of ZONE_MOVABLE memory we can have in the system without doing
> > > harm to the system.
> >
> > Why would you say that secretmem allocates from !ZONE_MOVABLE?
> > If we put boot time reservations aside, the memory allocation for
> > secretmem follows the same rules as the memory allocations for any file
> > descriptor. That means we allocate memory with GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE.
>
> Oh, okay - I missed that! I had the impression that pages are unmovable and
> allocating from ZONE_MOVABLE would be a violation of that?
>
> > After the allocation the memory indeed becomes unmovable but it's not
> > like we are eating memory from other zones here.
>
> ... and here you have your problem. That's a no-no. We only allow it in very
> special cases where it can't be avoided - e.g., vfio having to pin guest
> memory when passing through memory to VMs.
>
> Hotplug memory, online it to ZONE_MOVABLE. Allocate secretmem. Try to unplug
> the memory again -> endless loop in offline_pages().
>
> Or have a CMA area that gets used with GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE. Allocate
> secretmem. The owner of the area tries to allocate memory - always fails.
> Purpose of CMA destroyed.
>
> >
> > > Ideally, we would want to support page migration/compaction and allow for
> > > allocation from ZONE_MOVABLE as well. Would involve temporarily mapping,
> > > copying, unmapping. Sounds feasible, but not sure which roadblocks we would
> > > find on the way.
> >
> > We can support migration/compaction with temporary mapping. The first
> > roadblock I've hit there was that migration allocates 4K destination
> > page and if we use it in secret map we are back to scrambling the direct
> > map into 4K pieces. It still sounds feasible but not as trivial :)
>
> That sounds like the proper way for me to do it then.
Although migration of secretmem pages sounds feasible now, there maybe
other issues I didn't see because I'm not very familiar with
migration/compaction code.
I've looked again at CMA and I'm inclined to agree with you that using
CMA for secretmem allocations could be the right thing.
--
Sincerely yours,
Mike.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists