netdev - Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

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, 26 Jan 2017 14:10:06 +0100
From:   Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
CC:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        marcelo.leitner@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

On 01/26/2017 12:58 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 26-01-17 12:33:55, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>> On 01/26/2017 11:08 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [...]
>>> If you disagree I can drop the bpf part of course...
>>
>> If we could consolidate these spots with kvmalloc() eventually, I'm
>> all for it. But even if __GFP_NORETRY is not covered down to all
>> possible paths, it kind of does have an effect already of saying
>> 'don't try too hard', so would it be harmful to still keep that for
>> now? If it's not, I'd personally prefer to just leave it as is until
>> there's some form of support by kvmalloc() and friends.
>
> Well, you can use kvmalloc(size, GFP_KERNEL|__GFP_NORETRY). It is not
> disallowed. It is not _supported_ which means that if it doesn't work as
> you expect you are on your own. Which is actually the situation right
> now as well. But I still think that this is just not right thing to do.
> Even though it might happen to work in some cases it gives a false
> impression of a solution. So I would rather go with

Hmm. 'On my own' means, we could potentially BUG somewhere down the
vmalloc implementation, etc, presumably? So it might in-fact be
harmful to pass that, right?

> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
> index 8697f43cf93c..a6dc4d596f14 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
> @@ -53,6 +53,11 @@ void bpf_register_map_type(struct bpf_map_type_list *tl)
>
>   void *bpf_map_area_alloc(size_t size)
>   {
> +	/*
> +	 * FIXME: we would really like to not trigger the OOM killer and rather
> +	 * fail instead. This is not supported right now. Please nag MM people
> +	 * if these OOM start bothering people.
> +	 */

Ok, I know this is out of scope for this series, but since i) this
is _not_ the _only_ spot right now which has such a construct and ii)
I am already kind of nagging a bit ;), my question would be, what
would it take to start supporting it?

>   	return kvzalloc(size, GFP_USER);
>   }

Thanks,
Daniel