linux-kernel - Re: Memory allocation on speculative fastpaths

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: <YnKocgiWrupyFki3@cmpxchg.org>
Date:   Wed, 4 May 2022 09:23:14 -0700
From:   Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
To:     Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
Cc:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        "Liam R. Howlett" <liam.howlett@...cle.com>,
        Michel Lespinasse <walken.cr@...il.com>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
Subject: Re: Memory allocation on speculative fastpaths

On Tue, May 03, 2022 at 04:15:46PM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> On Tue, May 3, 2022 at 11:28 AM Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, May 03, 2022 at 09:39:05AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 03, 2022 at 06:04:13PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > On Tue 03-05-22 08:59:13, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > Hello!
> > > > >
> > > > > Just following up from off-list discussions yesterday.
> > > > >
> > > > > The requirements to allocate on an RCU-protected speculative fastpath
> > > > > seem to be as follows:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1.        Never sleep.
> > > > > 2.        Never reclaim.
> > > > > 3.        Leave emergency pools alone.
> > > > >
> > > > > Any others?
> > > > >
> > > > > If those rules suffice, and if my understanding of the GFP flags is
> > > > > correct (ha!!!), then the following GFP flags should cover this:
> > > > >
> > > > >   __GFP_NOMEMALLOC | __GFP_NOWARN
> > > >
> > > > GFP_NOWAIT | __GFP_NOMEMALLOC | __GFP_NOWARN
> > >
> > > Ah, good point on GFP_NOWAIT, thank you!
> >
> > Johannes (I think it was?) made the point to me that if we have another
> > task very slowly freeing memory, a task in this path can take advantage
> > of that other task's hard work and never go into reclaim.  So the
> > approach we should take is:

Right, GFP_NOWAIT can starve out other allocations. It can clear out
the freelists without the burden of having to do reclaim like
everybody else wanting memory during a shortage. Including GFP_KERNEL.

In smaller doses and/or for privileged purposes (e.g. single-argument
kfree_rcu ;)), those allocations are fine. But because the context is
page tables specifically, it would mean that userspace could trigger a
large number of those and DOS other applications and the kernel.

> > p4d_alloc(GFP_NOWAIT | __GFP_NOMEMALLOC | __GFP_NOWARN);
> > pud_alloc(GFP_NOWAIT | __GFP_NOMEMALLOC | __GFP_NOWARN);
> > pmd_alloc(GFP_NOWAIT | __GFP_NOMEMALLOC | __GFP_NOWARN);
> >
> > if (failure) {
> >   rcu_read_unlock();
> >   do_reclaim();
> >   return FAULT_FLAG_RETRY;
> > }
> >
> > ... but all this is now moot since the approach we agreed to yesterday
> > is:
> 
> I think the discussion was about the above approach and Johannes
> suggested to fallback to the normal pagefault handling with mmap_lock
> locked if PMD does not exist. Please correct me if I misunderstood
> here.

Yeah. Either way works, as long as the task is held accountable.