linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH memcg] memcg: prohibit unconditional exceeding the limit of dying tasks

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: <YT8OTozT3FN9P2k7@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:   Mon, 13 Sep 2021 10:39:42 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
To:     Vasily Averin <vvs@...tuozzo.com>
Cc:     Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
        cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH memcg] memcg: prohibit unconditional exceeding the limit
 of dying tasks

On Mon 13-09-21 10:51:37, Vasily Averin wrote:
> On 9/10/21 3:39 PM, Vasily Averin wrote:
> > The kernel currently allows dying tasks to exceed the memcg limits.
> > The allocation is expected to be the last one and the occupied memory
> > will be freed soon.
> > This is not always true because it can be part of the huge vmalloc
> > allocation. Allowed once, they will repeat over and over again.
> 
> > diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > index 389b5766e74f..67195fcfbddf 100644
> > --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> > +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > @@ -2622,15 +2625,6 @@ static int try_charge_memcg(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, gfp_t gfp_mask,
> >  	if (gfp_mask & __GFP_ATOMIC)
> >  		goto force;
> >  
> > -	/*
> > -	 * Unlike in global OOM situations, memcg is not in a physical
> > -	 * memory shortage.  Allow dying and OOM-killed tasks to
> > -	 * bypass the last charges so that they can exit quickly and
> > -	 * free their memory.
> > -	 */
> > -	if (unlikely(should_force_charge()))
> > -		goto force;
> > -
> 
> Should we keep current behaviour for (current->flags & PF_EXITING) case perhaps?

Why?

> It is set inside do_exit only and (I hope) cannot trigger huge vmalloc allocations.

Allocations in this code path should be rare but it is not like they are
non-existent. This is rather hard to review area spread at many places
so if we are deciding to make the existing model simpler (no bypassing)
then I would rather have no exceptions unless they are reaaly necessary
and document them if they are.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs