[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAM_iQpWhQgJXumEnoKvH5VaCRTkZKmQQdKLkRsChf3+GiN47qQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2020 10:54:39 -0800
From: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To: Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
Cc: Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
NetFilter <netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
syzbot <syzbot+adf6c6c2be1c3a718121@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>,
Jozsef Kadlecsik <kadlec@...filter.org>
Subject: Re: [Patch nf v2 1/3] xt_hashlimit: avoid OOM for user-controlled vmalloc
On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 4:16 AM Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de> wrote:
>
> Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> wrote:
> > The hashtable size could be controlled by user, so use flags
> > GFP_USER | __GFP_NOWARN to avoid OOM warning triggered by user-space.
> >
> > Also add __GFP_NORETRY to avoid retrying, as this is just a
> > best effort and the failure is already handled gracefully.
> >
> > Reported-and-tested-by: syzbot+adf6c6c2be1c3a718121@...kaller.appspotmail.com
> > Cc: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>
> > Cc: Jozsef Kadlecsik <kadlec@...filter.org>
> > Cc: Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
> > Signed-off-by: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
> > ---
> > net/netfilter/xt_hashlimit.c | 4 ++--
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/net/netfilter/xt_hashlimit.c b/net/netfilter/xt_hashlimit.c
> > index bccd47cd7190..5d9943b37c42 100644
> > --- a/net/netfilter/xt_hashlimit.c
> > +++ b/net/netfilter/xt_hashlimit.c
> > @@ -293,8 +293,8 @@ static int htable_create(struct net *net, struct hashlimit_cfg3 *cfg,
> > if (size < 16)
> > size = 16;
> > }
> > - /* FIXME: don't use vmalloc() here or anywhere else -HW */
> > - hinfo = vmalloc(struct_size(hinfo, hash, size));
> > + hinfo = __vmalloc(struct_size(hinfo, hash, size),
> > + GFP_USER | __GFP_NOWARN | __GFP_NORETRY, PAGE_KERNEL);
>
> Sorry for not noticing this earlier: should that be GFP_KERNEL_ACCOUNT
> instead of GFP_USER?
Why do you think it should be accounted in kmemcg?
I think this one is controlled by user, so I pick GFP_USER,
like many other cases, for example,
proc_allowed_congestion_control().
GFP_KERNEL_ACCOUNT (or SLAB_ACCOUNT) is not
common in networking, it is typically for socket allocations.
GFP_USER is common.
Thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists