linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v16 1/5] mm: add VM_DROPPABLE for designating always lazily freeable mappings

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: <CAG48ez1k0J013tYLfmnT8NXRpG_5BR10xnH8r-yRvTLpJe-nLA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2024 17:50:34 +0200
From: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
To: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, patches@...ts.linux.dev, tglx@...utronix.de, 
	linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, 
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, 
	Adhemerval Zanella Netto <adhemerval.zanella@...aro.org>, "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos@...hat.com>, 
	Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, 
	Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, David Hildenbrand <dhildenb@...hat.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v16 1/5] mm: add VM_DROPPABLE for designating always
 lazily freeable mappings

On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 5:12 PM Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 4:35 PM Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@...c4.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 03:00:26PM +0200, Jann Horn wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 2:13 PM Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@...c4.com> wrote:
> > > > On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 12:48:58PM +0200, Jann Horn wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 2:24 PM Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@...c4.com> wrote:
> > > > > > c) If there's not enough memory to service a page fault, it's not fatal.
> > > > > [...]
> > > > > > @@ -5689,6 +5689,10 @@ vm_fault_t handle_mm_fault(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long address,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >         lru_gen_exit_fault();
> > > > > >
> > > > > > +       /* If the mapping is droppable, then errors due to OOM aren't fatal. */
> > > > > > +       if (vma->vm_flags & VM_DROPPABLE)
> > > > > > +               ret &= ~VM_FAULT_OOM;
> > > > >
> > > > > Can you remind me how this is supposed to work? If we get an OOM
> > > > > error, and the error is not fatal, does that mean we'll just keep
> > > > > hitting the same fault handler over and over again (until we happen to
> > > > > have memory available again I guess)?
> > > >
> > > > Right, it'll just keep retrying. I agree this isn't great, which is why
> > > > in the 2023 patchset, I had additional code to simply skip the faulting
> > > > instruction, and then the userspace code would notice the inconsistency
> > > > and fallback to the syscall. This worked pretty well. But it meant
> > > > decoding the instruction and in general skipping instructions is weird,
> > > > and that made this patchset very very contentious. Since the skipping
> > > > behavior isn't actually required by the /security goals/ of this, I
> > > > figured I'd just drop that. And maybe we can all revisit it together
> > > > sometime down the line. But for now I'm hoping for something a little
> > > > easier to swallow.
> > >
> > > In that case, since we need to be able to populate this memory to make
> > > forward progress, would it make sense to remove the parts of the patch
> > > that treat the allocation as if it was allowed to silently fail (the
> > > "__GFP_NOWARN | __GFP_NORETRY" and the "ret &= ~VM_FAULT_OOM")? I
> > > think that would also simplify this a bit by making this type of
> > > memory a little less special.
> >
> > The whole point, though, is that it needs to not fail or warn. It's
> > memory that can be dropped/zeroed at any moment, and the code is
> > deliberately robust to that.
>
> Sure - but does it have to be more robust than accessing a newly
> allocated piece of memory [which hasn't been populated with anonymous
> pages yet] or bringing a swapped-out page back from swap?
>
> I'm not an expert on OOM handling, but my understanding is that the
> kernel tries _really_ hard to avoid failing low-order GFP_KERNEL
> allocations, with the help of the OOM killer. My understanding is that
> those allocations basically can't fail with a NULL return unless the
> process has already been killed or it is in a memcg_kmem cgroup that
> contains only processes that have been marked as exempt from OOM
> killing. (Or if you're using error injection to explicitly tell the
> kernel to fail the allocation.)
> My understanding is that normal outcomes of an out-of-memory situation
> are things like the OOM killer killing processes (including
> potentially the calling one) to free up memory, or the OOM killer
> panic()ing the whole system as a last resort; but getting a NULL
> return from page_alloc(GFP_KERNEL) without getting killed is not one
> of those outcomes.

Or, from a different angle: You're trying to allocate memory, and you
can't make forward progress until that memory has been allocated
(unless the process is killed). That's what GFP_KERNEL is for. Stuff
like "__GFP_NOWARN | __GFP_NORETRY" is for when you have a backup plan
that lets you make progress (perhaps in a slightly less efficient way,
or by dropping some incoming data, or something like that), and it
hints to the page allocator that it doesn't have to try hard to
reclaim memory if it can't find free memory quickly.