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]

Date:   Thu, 23 Feb 2023 11:35:54 +1100
From:   Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        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


Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> writes:

> On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 09:59:35AM +1100, Alistair Popple wrote:
>> The idea was every driver already needs to allocate a pages array to
>> pass to pin_user_pages(), and by necessity drivers have to keep a
>> reference to the contents of that in one form or another. So
>> conceptually the equivalent of:
>> 
>> struct vm_account {
>>        struct list_head possible_pinners;
>>        struct mem_cgroup *memcg;
>>        struct pages **pages;
>>        [...]
>> };
>> 
>> Unpinnig involves finding a new owner by traversing the list of
>> page->memcg_data->possible_pinners and iterating over *pages[] to figure
>> out if that vm_account actually has this page pinned or not and could
>> own it.
>> 
>> Agree this is costly though. And I don't think all drivers keep the
>> array around so "iterating over *pages[]" may need to be a callback.
>
> Is pinning in this context referring to FOLL_LONGTERM pins or any
> FOLL_PIN?  In the latter case block based direct I/O does not keep
> the pages array around, and also is absolutely not willing to pay
> for the overhead.

Good point. I was primarily targeting FOLL_LONGTERM users. I'm not too
familiar with block based direct I/O but from what I can tell it
currently doesn't respect any kind of RLIMIT anyway so I guess the
requirment to limit pinned pages there isn't so revelant.