linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: add group_oom

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: <YbOxxhuQ3a1Myd6v@dschatzberg-fedora-PC0Y6AEN.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date:   Fri, 10 Dec 2021 15:00:06 -0500
From:   Dan Schatzberg <schatzberg.dan@...il.com>
To:     Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
Cc:     Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Zefan Li <lizefan.x@...edance.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@...radead.org>,
        Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>,
        Alex Shi <alexs@...nel.org>,
        Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...il.com>,
        "open list:CONTROL GROUP (CGROUP)" <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:CONTROL GROUP - MEMORY RESOURCE CONTROLLER (MEMCG)" 
        <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: add group_oom_kill memory event

On Fri, Dec 03, 2021 at 04:45:54PM -0800, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 8:24 AM Dan Schatzberg <schatzberg.dan@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > Our container agent wants to know when a container exits if it was OOM
> > killed or not to report to the user. We use memory.oom.group = 1 to
> > ensure that OOM kills within the container's cgroup kill
> > everything. Existing memory.events are insufficient for knowing if
> > this triggered:
> >
> > 1) Our current approach reads memory.events oom_kill and reports the
> > container was killed if the value is non-zero. This is erroneous in
> > some cases where containers create their children cgroups with
> > memory.oom.group=1 as such OOM kills will get counted against the
> > container cgroup's oom_kill counter despite not actually OOM killing
> > the entire container.
> >
> > 2) Reading memory.events.local will fail to identify OOM kills in leaf
> > cgroups (that don't set memory.oom.group) within the container cgroup.
> >
> > This patch adds a new oom_group_kill event when memory.oom.group
> > triggers to allow userspace to cleanly identify when an entire cgroup
> > is oom killed.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Dan Schatzberg <schatzberg.dan@...il.com>
> 
> So, with this patch, will you be watching oom_group_kill from
> memory.events or memory.events.local file for your use-case?
> 
> Reviewed-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>

We will watch from memory.events.local. If containers want to
construct their own child cgroups and allow for group oom to occur
inside, that's fine - a future container exit should not result in us
claiming the container was OOM killed. If the container exits and
memory.event.local shows oom_group_kill > 0 then we know the container
was OOM killed.