netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/1] mm: avoid re-using pfmemalloc page in page_frag

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: <053d1d51-430a-2fa9-fb72-fee5d2f9785c@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 4 Nov 2020 13:51:29 +0100
From:   Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:     Rama Nichanamatlu <rama.nichanamatlu@...cle.com>,
        Dongli Zhang <dongli.zhang@...cle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org,
        aruna.ramakrishna@...cle.com, bert.barbe@...cle.com,
        venkat.x.venkatsubra@...cle.com, manjunath.b.patil@...cle.com,
        joe.jin@...cle.com, srinivas.eeda@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] mm: avoid re-using pfmemalloc page in
 page_frag_alloc()



On 11/4/20 1:36 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 04, 2020 at 09:50:30AM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>> On 11/4/20 2:16 AM, Rama Nichanamatlu wrote:
>>>> Thanks for providing the numbers.  Do you think that dropping (up to)
>>>> 7 packets is acceptable?
>>>
>>> net.ipv4.tcp_syn_retries = 6
>>>
>>> tcp clients wouldn't even get that far leading to connect establish issues.
>>
>> This does not really matter. If host was under memory pressure,
>> dropping a few packets is really not an issue.
>>
>> Please do not add expensive checks in fast path, just to "not drop a packet"
>> even if the world is collapsing.
> 
> Right, that was my first patch -- to only recheck if we're about to
> reuse the page.  Do you think that's acceptable, or is that still too
> close to the fast path?

I think it is totally acceptable.

The same strategy is used in NIC drivers, before recycling a page.

If page_is_pfmemalloc() returns true, they simply release the 'problematic'page
and attempt a new allocation.

( git grep -n page_is_pfmemalloc -- drivers/net/ethernet/ )


> 
>> Also consider that NIC typically have thousands of pre-allocated page/frags
>> for their RX ring buffers, they might all have pfmemalloc set, so we are speaking
>> of thousands of packet drops before the RX-ring can be refilled with normal (non pfmemalloc) page/frags.
>>
>> If we want to solve this issue more generically, we would have to try
>> to copy data into a non pfmemalloc frag instead of dropping skb that
>> had frags allocated minutes ago under memory pressure.
> 
> I don't think we need to copy anything.  We need to figure out if the
> system is still under memory pressure, and if not, we can clear the
> pfmemalloc bit on the frag, as in my second patch.  The 'least change'
> way of doing that is to try to allocate a page, but the VM could export
> a symbol that says "we're not under memory pressure any more".
> 
> Did you want to move checking that into the networking layer, or do you
> want to keep it in the pagefrag allocator?

I think your proposal is fine, thanks !