linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 2/5] mm: Add policy

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, 14 Sep 2023 20:02:59 +0800
From:   Bixuan Cui <cuibixuan@...o.com>
To:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Chuyi Zhou <zhouchuyi@...edance.com>, hannes@...xchg.org,
        mhocko@...nel.org, roman.gushchin@...ux.dev, ast@...nel.org,
        daniel@...earbox.net, andrii@...nel.org, muchun.song@...ux.dev
Cc:     bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        wuyun.abel@...edance.com, robin.lu@...edance.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 2/5] mm: Add policy_name to identify OOM policies



在 2023/8/15 4:51, Jonathan Corbet 写道:
>>   /**
>>    * dump_tasks - dump current memory state of all system tasks
>>    * @oc: pointer to struct oom_control
>> @@ -484,8 +513,8 @@ static void dump_oom_summary(struct oom_control *oc, struct task_struct *victim)
>>   
>>   static void dump_header(struct oom_control *oc, struct task_struct *p)
>>   {
>> -	pr_warn("%s invoked oom-killer: gfp_mask=%#x(%pGg), order=%d, oom_score_adj=%hd\n",
>> -		current->comm, oc->gfp_mask, &oc->gfp_mask, oc->order,
>> +	pr_warn("%s invoked oom-killer: gfp_mask=%#x(%pGg), order=%d, policy_name=%s, oom_score_adj=%hd\n",
>> +		current->comm, oc->gfp_mask, &oc->gfp_mask, oc->order, oc->policy_name,
> ...and if the policy name is unterminated, this print will run off the
> end of the structure.
> 
> Am I missing something here?
Perhaps it is inaccurate to use policy name in this way. For example, 
some one use BPF_PROG(bpf_oom_evaluate_task, ...) but do not set the 
policy name through bpf_set_policy_name. In this way, the result is 
still policy name=default, which ultimately leads to error print in the 
dump_header.
I think a better way:

+static const char *const policy_select[] = {
+    "OOM_DEFAULT";
+    "BPF_ABORT",
+    "BPF_NEXT",
+    "BPF_SELECT",
+};

struct oom_control {

  	/* Used to print the constraint info. */
  	enum oom_constraint constraint;
+
+	/* Used to report the policy select. */
+	int policy_select;
  };

static int oom_evaluate_task(struct task_struct *task, void *arg)
{
...

+	switch (bpf_oom_evaluate_task(task, oc)) {
+	case BPF_EVAL_ABORT:
+              oc->policy_select = BPF_EVAL_ABORT;
+		goto abort; /* abort search process */
+	case BPF_EVAL_NEXT:
+              oc->policy_select = BPF_EVAL_NEXT;
+		goto next; /* ignore the task */
+	case BPF_EVAL_SELECT:
+             oc->policy_select = BPF_EVAL_SELECT;
+		goto select; /* select the task */
+	default:
+		break; /* No BPF policy */
+	}

  static void dump_header(struct oom_control *oc, struct task_struct *p)
  {
-	pr_warn("%s invoked oom-killer: gfp_mask=%#x(%pGg), order=%d, 
oom_score_adj=%hd\n",
-		current->comm, oc->gfp_mask, &oc->gfp_mask, oc->order,
+	pr_warn("%s invoked oom-killer: gfp_mask=%#x(%pGg), order=%d, 
policy_name=%s, oom_score_adj=%hd\n",
+		current->comm, oc->gfp_mask, &oc->gfp_mask, oc->order, 
policy_select[oc->policy_select],
  			current->signal->oom_score_adj);


And all definitions of oc should be added
struct oom_control oc = {
      .select = NO_BPF_POLICY,
}

Delete set_oom_policy_name, it makes no sense for users to set policy 
names. :-)

Thanks
Bixuan Cui