linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH mm v5 0/9] memcg: accounting for objects allocated by mkdir, cgroup

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: <1a64fc6a-a33d-03f4-ec12-980e42148061@openvz.org>
Date:   Sun, 10 Jul 2022 21:53:34 +0300
From:   Vasily Averin <vvs@...nvz.org>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
Cc:     kernel@...nvz.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>,
        Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>,
        Cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH mm v5 0/9] memcg: accounting for objects allocated by
 mkdir, cgroup

On 7/1/22 14:03, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 27-06-22 09:37:14, Shakeel Butt wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 6:59 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com> wrote:
> [...]
>>> Is it even possible to prevent from id
>>> depletion by the memory consumption? Any medium sized memcg can easily
>>> consume all the ids AFAICS.
>>
>> Though the patch series is pitched as protection against OOMs, I think
>> it is beneficial irrespective. Protection against an adversarial actor
>> should not be the aim here. IMO this patch series improves the memory
>> association to the actual user which is better than unattributed
>> memory treated as system overhead.
> 
> Considering the amount of memory and "normal" cgroup usage (I guess we
> can agree that delegated subtrees do not count their cgroups in
> thousands) is this really something that is worth bothering with?
> 
> I mean, these patches are really small and not really disruptive so I do
> not really see any problem with them. Except that they clearly add a
> maintenance overhead. Not directly with the memory they track but any
> future cgroup/memcg metadata related objects would need to be tracked as
> well and I am worried this will get quickly out of sync. So we will have
> a half assed solution in place that doesn't really help any containment
> nor it provides a good and robust consumption tracking.
> 
> All that being said I find these changes rather without a great value or
> use.

Dear Michal,
I sill have 2 questions:
1) if you do not want to account any memory allocated for cgroup objects,
should you perhaps revert commit 3e38e0aaca9e "mm: memcg: charge memcg percpu
memory to the parent cgroup". Is it an exception perhaps?
(in fact I hope you will not revert this patch, I just would like to know 
your explanations about this accounting)
2) my patch set includes kernfs accounting required for proper netdevices accounting

Allocs  Alloc   Allocation
number  size
--------------------------------------------
1   +  128      (__kernfs_new_node+0x4d)	kernfs node
1   +   88      (__kernfs_iattrs+0x57)		kernfs iattrs
1   +   96      (simple_xattr_alloc+0x28)	simple_xattr, can grow over 4Kb
1       32      (simple_xattr_set+0x59)
1       8       (__kernfs_new_node+0x30)

 2/9] memcg: enable accounting for kernfs nodes
 3/9] memcg: enable accounting for kernfs iattrs
 4/9] memcg: enable accounting for struct simple_xattr

What do you think about them? Should I resend them as a new separate patch set?

Thank you,
	Vasily Averin