linux-kernel - Re: memcg memory accounting in vmalloc is broken

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]

Date:   Thu, 7 Oct 2021 12:08:37 +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>,
        Cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>, Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel@...nvz.org, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>
Subject: Re: memcg memory accounting in vmalloc is broken

On Thu 07-10-21 11:50:44, Vasily Averin wrote:
> On 10/7/21 11:16 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > Cc Mel and Uladzislau
> > 
> > On Thu 07-10-21 10:13:23, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >> On Thu 07-10-21 11:04:40, Vasily Averin wrote:
> >>> vmalloc was switched to __alloc_pages_bulk but it does not account the memory to memcg.
> >>>
> >>> Is it known issue perhaps?
> >>
> >> No, I think this was just overlooked. Definitely doesn't look
> >> intentional to me.
> 
> I use following patch as a quick fix,
> it helps though it is far from ideal and can be optimized.
> 
> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> index b37435c274cf..e6abe2cac159 100644
> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -5290,6 +5290,12 @@ unsigned long __alloc_pages_bulk(gfp_t gfp, int preferred_nid,
>  
>  		page = __rmqueue_pcplist(zone, 0, ac.migratetype, alloc_flags,
>  								pcp, pcp_list);
> +
> +		if (memcg_kmem_enabled() && (gfp & __GFP_ACCOUNT) && page &&
> +		    unlikely(__memcg_kmem_charge_page(page, gfp, 0) != 0)) {
> +			__free_pages(page, 0);
> +			page = NULL;
> +		}
>  		if (unlikely(!page)) {
>  			/* Try and get at least one page */
>  			if (!nr_populated)
> -- 
> 2.31.1

Yes, this makes sense to me.

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs