linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v5 31/34] bpf: eliminate rlimit-based memory accounting for bpf local storage maps

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <0DE88C8F-54AC-4E90-90D9-6BCFB2442953@fb.com>
Date:   Fri, 13 Nov 2020 20:53:25 +0000
From:   Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>
To:     Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
CC:     bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        "Daniel Borkmann" <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kernel Team <Kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v5 31/34] bpf: eliminate rlimit-based memory
 accounting for bpf local storage maps



> On Nov 13, 2020, at 11:33 AM, Roman Gushchin <guro@...com> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 10:14:48AM -0800, Song Liu wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On Nov 12, 2020, at 2:15 PM, Roman Gushchin <guro@...com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Do not use rlimit-based memory accounting for bpf local storage maps.
>>> It has been replaced with the memcg-based memory accounting.
>>> 
>>> Signed-off-by: Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
>>> ---
>>> kernel/bpf/bpf_local_storage.c | 11 -----------
>>> 1 file changed, 11 deletions(-)
>>> 
>>> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/bpf_local_storage.c b/kernel/bpf/bpf_local_storage.c
>>> index fd4f9ac1d042..3b0da5a04d55 100644
>>> --- a/kernel/bpf/bpf_local_storage.c
>>> +++ b/kernel/bpf/bpf_local_storage.c
>> 
>> Do we need to change/remove mem_charge() and mem_uncharge() in 
>> bpf_local_storage.c? I didn't find that in the set.
> 
> No, those are used for per-socket memory limits (see sk_storage_charge()
> and omem_charge()).

I see. Thanks for the explanation. 

Acked-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>