linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH nft] nft: memcg accounting for dynamically allocated objects

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:   Fri, 1 Apr 2022 14:14:44 -0700
From:   Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>
To:     Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
Cc:     Vasily Averin <vasily.averin@...ux.dev>,
        Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>, kernel@...nvz.org,
        Jozsef Kadlecsik <kadlec@...filter.org>,
        netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH nft] nft: memcg accounting for dynamically allocated
 objects

On Fri, Apr 01, 2022 at 09:31:59PM +0200, Florian Westphal wrote:
> Vasily Averin <vasily.averin@...ux.dev> wrote:
> > > Same problem as connlimit, can be called from packet path.
> > > Basically all GFP_ATOMIC are suspicious.
> > > 
> > > Not sure how to resolve this, similar mechanics in iptables world (e.g.
> > > connlimit or SET target) don't use memcg accounting.
> > > 
> > > Perhaps for now resend with only the GFP_KERNEL parts converted?
> > > Those are safe.
> > 
> > It is safe for packet path too, _ACCOUNT allocation will not be able to find memcg
> > in case of "!in_task()" context.
> > On the other hand any additional checks on such path will affect performance.
> 
> I'm not sure this works with ksoftirqd serving network stack?
> 
> > Could you please estimate how often is this code used in the case of nft vs packet path?
> 
> It depends on user configuration.
> Update from packet path is used for things like port knocking or other
> dyanamic filter lists, or somehing like Limiting connections to x-per-address/subnet and so on.
> 
> > If the opposite is the case, then I can add __GFP_ACCOUNT flag depending on in_task() check.
> 
> But what task/memcg is used for the accounting in that case?

Root memcg/no accounting, which is the same.

There is a way to account for a specific memcg in such cases, it's used for
bpf maps, for example. We save a pointer to the memcg which created the map and
charge it for all allocations from a !in_task context. But the performance can
be affected, so let's not do without regression tests and a serious need.

Thanks!