linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Increase default MLOCK

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:   Tue, 16 Nov 2021 12:41:00 -0700
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:     Vito Caputo <vcaputo@...garu.com>
Cc:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Ammar Faizi <ammarfaizi2@...weeb.org>,
        Drew DeVault <sir@...wn.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
        io_uring Mailing List <io-uring@...r.kernel.org>,
        Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Increase default MLOCK_LIMIT to 8 MiB

On 11/16/21 12:21 PM, Vito Caputo wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 11:55:41AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 11/16/21 11:36 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>>> On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 08:35:30PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>>> I'd also be interested in seeing feedback from the MM developers.
>>> [...]
>>>> Subject: Increase default MLOCK_LIMIT to 8 MiB
>>>
>>> On the one hand, processes can already allocate at least this much
>>> memory that is non-swappable, just by doing things like opening a lot of
>>> files (allocating struct file & fdtable), using a lot of address space
>>> (allocating page tables), so I don't have a problem with it per se.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, 64kB is available on anything larger than an IBM XT.
>>> Linux will still boot on machines with 4MB of RAM (eg routers).  For
>>> someone with a machine with only, say, 32MB of memory, this allows a
>>> process to make a quarter of the memory unswappable, and maybe that's
>>> not a good idea.  So perhaps this should scale over a certain range?
>>>
>>> Is 8MB a generally useful amount of memory for an iouring user anyway?
>>> If you're just playing with it, sure, but if you have, oh i don't know,
>>> a database, don't you want to pin the entire cache and allow IO to the
>>> whole thing?
>>
>> 8MB is plenty for most casual use cases, which is exactly the ones that
>> we want to "just work" without requiring weird system level
>> modifications to increase the memlock limit.
>>
> 
> Considering a single fullscreen 32bpp 4K-resolution framebuffer is
> ~32MiB, I'm not convinced this is really correct in nearly 2022.

You don't need to register any buffers, and I don't expect any basic
uses cases to do so. Which means that the 8MB just need to cover the
ring itself, and you can fit a _lot_ of rings into 8MB. The memlock
limit only applies to buffers if you register them, not for any "normal"
use cases where you just pass buffers for read/write or O_DIRECT
read/write.

> If we're going to bump the default at the kernel, I'm with Matthew on
> making it autoscale within a sane range, depending on available
> memory.

I just don't want to turn this into a bikeshedding conversation. I'm
fine with making it autoscale obviously, but who's going to do the work?

> As an upper bound I'd probably look at the highest anticipated
> consumer resolutions, and handle a couple fullscreen 32bpp instances
> being pinned.

Not sure I see the relevance here.

-- 
Jens Axboe