[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YBLA7sEKn01HXd/U@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2021 14:49:34 +0100
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Cc: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
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>,
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>, 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>,
Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>,
Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>,
Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
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, Hagen Paul Pfeifer <hagen@...u.net>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmerdabbelt@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v16 07/11] secretmem: use PMD-size pages to amortize
direct map fragmentation
On Thu 28-01-21 13:28:10, Cristopher Lameter wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jan 2021, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> > > So, if I understand your concerns correct this implementation has two
> > > issues:
> > > 1) allocation failure at page fault that causes unrecoverable OOM and
> > > 2) a possibility for an unprivileged user to deplete secretmem pool and
> > > cause (1) to others
> > >
> > > I'm not really familiar with OOM internals, but when I simulated an
> > > allocation failure in my testing only the allocating process and it's
> > > parent were OOM-killed and then the system continued normally.
> >
> > If you kill the allocating process then yes, it would work, but your
> > process might be the very last to be selected.
>
> OOMs are different if you have a "constrained allocation". In that case it
> is the fault of the process who wanted memory with certain conditions.
> That memory is not available. General memory is available though. In that
> case the allocating process is killed.
I do not see this implementation would do anything like that. Neither
anything like that implemented in the oom killer. Constrained
allocations (cpusets/memcg/mempolicy) only do restrict their selection
to processes which belong to the same domain. So I am not really sure
what you are referring to. The is only a global knob to _always_ kill
the allocating process on OOM.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists