linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 14/19] mm: Introduce a cgroup for pinned memory

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: <24668a43-fb00-5240-6072-230c5f5d0943@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 6 Feb 2023 20:00:54 -0500
From:   Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To:     Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:     Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        jgg@...dia.com, jhubbard@...dia.com, tjmercier@...gle.com,
        hannes@...xchg.org, surenb@...gle.com, mkoutny@...e.com,
        daniel@...ll.ch, "Daniel P . Berrange" <berrange@...hat.com>,
        Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
        Zefan Li <lizefan.x@...edance.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/19] mm: Introduce a cgroup for pinned memory

On 2/6/23 17:39, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 6, 2023 at 2:36 PM Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 06, 2023 at 02:32:10PM -0800, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
>>> I guess it boils down to which we want:
>>> (a) Limit the amount of memory processes in a cgroup can be pinned/locked.
>>> (b) Limit the amount of memory charged to a cgroup that can be pinned/locked.
>>>
>>> The proposal is doing (a), I suppose if this was part of memcg it
>>> would be (b), right?
>>>
>>> I am not saying it should be one or the other, I am just making sure
>>> my understanding is clear.
>> I don't quite understand what the distinction would mean in practice. It's
>> just odd to put locked memory in a separate controller from interface POV.
> Assume we have 2 cgroups, A and B. A process in cgroup A creates a
> tmpfs file and writes to it, so the memory is now charged to cgroup A.
> Now imagine a process in cgroup B tries to lock this memory.
> - With (a) the amount of locked memory will count toward's cgroup A's
> limit, because cgroup A is charged for the memory.
> - With (b) the amount of locked memory will count toward's cgroup B's
> limit, because a process in cgroup B is locking the memory.
>
> I agree that it is confusing from an interface POV.

If it should not be part of the memcg, does it make sense to make it a 
resource in the existing misc controller? I believe we don't want a 
proliferation of new cgroup controllers.

Cheers,
Longman