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: <CAJuCfpF5zAif97-uK8M+-fJhd0pab4fMPDMUNkAXYOB3MC7aXg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 5 Nov 2020 08:50:58 -0800
From:   Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc:     Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>, 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, Nov 5, 2020 at 4:20 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed 04-11-20 12:40:51, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 04, 2020 at 07:58:44AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Tue 03-11-20 13:32:28, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 10:35:50AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > > On Mon 02-11-20 12:29:24, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > > > > [...]
> > > > > > To follow up on this. Should I post an RFC implementing SIGKILL_SYNC
> > > > > > which in addition to sending a kill signal would also reap the
> > > > > > victim's mm in the context of the caller? Maybe having some code will
> > > > > > get the discussion moving forward?
> > > > >
> > > > > Yeah, having a code, even preliminary, might help here. This definitely
> > > > > needs a good to go from process management people as that proper is land
> > > > > full of surprises...
> > > >
> > > > Just to remind a idea I suggested to reuse existing concept
> > > >
> > > >     fd = pidfd_open(victim process)
> > > >     fdatasync(fd);
> > > >     close(fd);
> > >
> > > I must have missed this proposal. Anyway, are you suggesting fdatasync
> > > to act as a destructive operation?
> >
> > write(fd) && fdatasync(fd) are already destructive operation if the file
> > is shared.
>
> I am likely missing something because fdatasync will not destroy any
> underlying data. It will sync
>
> > You don't need to reaping as destruptive operation. Rather than, just
> > commit on the asynchrnous status "write file into page cache and commit
> > with fsync" and "killing process and commit with fsync".
>
> I am sorry but I do not follow. The result of the memory reaping is a
> data loss. Any private mapping will simply lose it's content. The caller
> will get EFAULT when trying to access it but there is no way to
> reconstruct the data. This is everything but not resembling what I see
> f{data}sync is used for.

I think Minchan considers f{data}sync as a "commit" operation. So
write+f{data}sync would mean we write and commit written data,
kill+f{data}sync would mean we kill and commit that kill (reclaim the
resources).

>
> --
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs