netdev - Re: [PATCH v7 00/10] Request for Inclusion: per-cgroup tcp memory pressure

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: <4EDC9CE8.7090900@parallels.com>
Date:	Mon, 5 Dec 2011 08:28:56 -0200
From:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
To:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
CC:	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <paul@...lmenage.org>,
	<lizf@...fujitsu.com>, <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	<davem@...emloft.net>, <gthelen@...gle.com>,
	<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	<kirill@...temov.name>, <avagin@...allels.com>, <devel@...nvz.org>,
	<eric.dumazet@...il.com>, <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 00/10] Request for Inclusion: per-cgroup tcp memory
 pressure

On 12/05/2011 07:51 AM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Dec 2011 07:09:51 -0200
> Glauber Costa<glommer@...allels.com>  wrote:
>
>> On 12/05/2011 12:06 AM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2 Dec 2011 16:04:08 -0200
>>> Glauber Costa<glommer@...allels.com>   wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/30/2011 12:11 AM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 21:56:51 -0200
>>>>> Glauber Costa<glommer@...allels.com>    wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This patchset implements per-cgroup tcp memory pressure controls. It did not change
>>>>>> significantly since last submission: rather, it just merges the comments Kame had.
>>>>>> Most of them are style-related and/or Documentation, but there are two real bugs he
>>>>>> managed to spot (thanks)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please let me know if there is anything else I should address.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> After reading all codes again, I feel some strange. Could you clarify ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Here.
>>>>> ==
>>>>> +void sock_update_memcg(struct sock *sk)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +	/* right now a socket spends its whole life in the same cgroup */
>>>>> +	if (sk->sk_cgrp) {
>>>>> +		WARN_ON(1);
>>>>> +		return;
>>>>> +	}
>>>>> +	if (static_branch(&memcg_socket_limit_enabled)) {
>>>>> +		struct mem_cgroup *memcg;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +		BUG_ON(!sk->sk_prot->proto_cgroup);
>>>>> +
>>>>> +		rcu_read_lock();
>>>>> +		memcg = mem_cgroup_from_task(current);
>>>>> +		if (!mem_cgroup_is_root(memcg))
>>>>> +			sk->sk_cgrp = sk->sk_prot->proto_cgroup(memcg);
>>>>> +		rcu_read_unlock();
>>>>> ==
>>>>>
>>>>> sk->sk_cgrp is set to a memcg without any reference count.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then, no check for preventing rmdir() and freeing memcgroup.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there some css_get() or mem_cgroup_get() somewhere ?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There were a css_get in the first version of this patchset. It was
>>>> removed, however, because it was deemed anti-intuitive to prevent rmdir,
>>>> since we can't know which sockets are blocking it, or do anything about
>>>> it. Or did I misunderstand something ?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe I misuderstood. Thank you. Ok, there is no css_get/put and
>>> rmdir() is allowed. But, hmm....what's guarding threads from stale
>>> pointer access ?
>>>
>>> Does a memory cgroup which is pointed by sk->sk_cgrp always exist ?
>>>
>> If I am not mistaken, yes, it will. (Ok, right now it won't)
>>
>> Reason is a cgroup can't be removed if it is empty.
>> To make it empty, you need to move the tasks away.
>>
>> So the sockets will be moved away as well when you do it. So right now
>> they are not, so it would then probably be better to increase a
>> reference count with a comment saying that it is temporary.
>>
>
> I'm sorry if I misunderstand.
>
> At task exit, __fput() will be called against file descriptors, yes.
> __fput() calles f_op->release() =>  inet_release() =>  tcp_close().
>
> But TCP socket may be alive after task exit until it gets down to
> protocol close. For example, until the all message in send buffer
> is acked, socket and tcp connection will not be disappear.
>
> In short, socket's lifetime is different from it's task's.
> So, there may be sockets which are not belongs to any task.
>

Yeah, you're right. I guess this is one more reason for us to just keep 
the memcg reference around.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html