linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] proc: Avoid costly high-order page allocations when reading proc files

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: <CALOAHbBSvMuZnKF_vy3kGGNOCg5N2CgomLhxMxjn8RNwMTrw7A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2025 16:42:06 +0800
From: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com>
To: Harry Yoo <harry.yoo@...cle.com>
Cc: Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>, joel.granados@...nel.org, 
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] proc: Avoid costly high-order page allocations when
 reading proc files

On Wed, Apr 2, 2025 at 12:15 PM Harry Yoo <harry.yoo@...cle.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 01, 2025 at 07:01:04AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> >
> >
> > On April 1, 2025 12:30:46 AM PDT, Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com> wrote:
> > >While investigating a kcompactd 100% CPU utilization issue in production, I
> > >observed frequent costly high-order (order-6) page allocations triggered by
> > >proc file reads from monitoring tools. This can be reproduced with a simple
> > >test case:
> > >
> > >  fd = open(PROC_FILE, O_RDONLY);
> > >  size = read(fd, buff, 256KB);
> > >  close(fd);
> > >
> > >Although we should modify the monitoring tools to use smaller buffer sizes,
> > >we should also enhance the kernel to prevent these expensive high-order
> > >allocations.
> > >
> > >Signed-off-by: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com>
> > >Cc: Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>
> > >---
> > > fs/proc/proc_sysctl.c | 10 +++++++++-
> > > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > >diff --git a/fs/proc/proc_sysctl.c b/fs/proc/proc_sysctl.c
> > >index cc9d74a06ff0..c53ba733bda5 100644
> > >--- a/fs/proc/proc_sysctl.c
> > >+++ b/fs/proc/proc_sysctl.c
> > >@@ -581,7 +581,15 @@ static ssize_t proc_sys_call_handler(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *iter,
> > >     error = -ENOMEM;
> > >     if (count >= KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE)
> > >             goto out;
> > >-    kbuf = kvzalloc(count + 1, GFP_KERNEL);
> > >+
> > >+    /*
> > >+     * Use vmalloc if the count is too large to avoid costly high-order page
> > >+     * allocations.
> > >+     */
> > >+    if (count < (PAGE_SIZE << PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER))
> > >+            kbuf = kvzalloc(count + 1, GFP_KERNEL);
> >
> > Why not move this check into kvmalloc family?
>
> Hmm should this check really be in kvmalloc family?

Modifying the existing kvmalloc functions risks performance regressions.
Could we instead introduce a new variant like vkmalloc() (favoring
vmalloc over kmalloc) or kvmalloc_costless()?

>
> I don't think users would expect kvmalloc() to implictly decide on using
> vmalloc() without trying kmalloc() first, just because it's a high-order
> allocation.
>

-- 
Regards
Yafang