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 13:28:12 -0400
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To:     "T.J. Mercier" <tjmercier@...gle.com>
Cc:     Alistair Popple <apopple@...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, 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 Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 09:18:23AM -0800, T.J. Mercier wrote:

> > Solving that problem means figuring out when every cgroup stops using
> > the memory - pinning or not. That seems to be very costly.
> >
> This is the current behavior of accounting for memfds, and I suspect
> any kind of shared memory.
> 
> If cgroup A creates a memfd, maps and faults in pages, shares the
> memfd with cgroup B and then A unmaps and closes the memfd, then
> cgroup A is still charged for the pages it faulted in.

As we discussed, as long as the memory is swappable then eventually
memory pressure on cgroup A will evict the memfd pages and then cgroup
B will swap it in and be charged for it.
 
> FWIW this is also the behavior I was trying to use to attribute
> dma-buffers to their original allocators. Whoever touches it first
> gets charged as long as the memory is alive somewhere.
>
> Can't we do the same thing for pins?

If pins are tracked independently from memcg then definately not,
a process in cgroup A should never be able to make a charge on cgroup
B as a matter of security.

If pins are part of the memcg then we can't always turn the pin
request in to a NOP - the current cgroup always has to be charged for
the memory. Otherwise what is the point from a security perspective?

Jason