linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v17 00/10] mm: introduce memfd_secret system call to create "secret" memory areas

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <8cbfe2c3-cfc6-72e0-bab1-852f80e20684@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 9 Feb 2021 17:17:22 +0100
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc:     Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
        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>, 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
Subject: Re: [PATCH v17 00/10] mm: introduce memfd_secret system call to
 create "secret" memory areas

On 09.02.21 14:25, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 09-02-21 11:23:35, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> [...]
>> I am constantly trying to fight for making more stuff MOVABLE instead of
>> going into the other direction (e.g., because it's easier to implement,
>> which feels like the wrong direction).
>>
>> Maybe I am the only person that really cares about ZONE_MOVABLE these days
>> :) I can't stop such new stuff from popping up, so at least I want it to be
>> documented.
> 
> MOVABLE zone is certainly an important thing to keep working. And there
> is still quite a lot of work on the way. But as I've said this is more
> of a outlier than a norm. On the other hand movable zone is kinda hard
> requirement for a lot of application and it is to be expected that
> many features will be less than 100% compatible.  Some usecases even
> impossible. That's why I am arguing that we should have a central
> document where the movable zone is documented with all the potential
> problems we have encountered over time and explicitly state which
> features are fully/partially incompatible.
> 

I'll send a mail during the next weeks to gather current restrictions to 
document them (and include my brain dump). We might see more excessive 
use of ZONE_MOVABLE in the future and as history told us, of CMA as 
well. We really should start documenting/caring.

@Mike, it would be sufficient for me if one of your patches at least 
mention the situation in the description like

"Please note that secretmem currently behaves much more like long-term 
GUP instead of mlocked memory; secretmem is unmovable memory directly 
consumed/controlled by user space. secretmem cannot be placed onto 
ZONE_MOVABLE/CMA.

As long as there is no excessive use of secretmem (e.g., maximum of 16 
MiB for selected processes) in combination with ZONE_MOVABLE/CMA, this 
is barely a real issue. However, it is something to keep in mind when a 
significant amount of system RAM might be used for secretmem. In the 
future, we might support migration of secretmem and make it look much 
more like mlocked memory instead."

Just a suggestion.

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb