netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/4] bpf: Make non-preallocated allocation low priority

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CALOAHbA0sft0M8ibrOrxxT4WwL5ExTWyQc3L6sj6nD47-xHQPQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 2 Jul 2022 23:08:54 +0800
From:   Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com>
To:     Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>
Cc:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, Martin Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        john fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
        Quentin Monnet <quentin@...valent.com>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/4] bpf: Make non-preallocated allocation low priority

On Sat, Jul 2, 2022 at 12:14 PM Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 11:47:00PM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> > Hi Yafang,
> >
> > On 6/29/22 5:48 PM, Yafang Shao wrote:
> > > GFP_ATOMIC doesn't cooperate well with memcg pressure so far, especially
> > > if we allocate too much GFP_ATOMIC memory. For example, when we set the
> > > memcg limit to limit a non-preallocated bpf memory, the GFP_ATOMIC can
> > > easily break the memcg limit by force charge. So it is very dangerous to
> > > use GFP_ATOMIC in non-preallocated case. One way to make it safe is to
> > > remove __GFP_HIGH from GFP_ATOMIC, IOW, use (__GFP_ATOMIC |
> > > __GFP_KSWAPD_RECLAIM) instead, then it will be limited if we allocate
> > > too much memory.
> > >
> > > We introduced BPF_F_NO_PREALLOC is because full map pre-allocation is
> > > too memory expensive for some cases. That means removing __GFP_HIGH
> > > doesn't break the rule of BPF_F_NO_PREALLOC, but has the same goal with
> > > it-avoiding issues caused by too much memory. So let's remove it.
> > >
> > > __GFP_KSWAPD_RECLAIM doesn't cooperate well with memcg pressure neither
> > > currently. But the memcg code can be improved to make
> > > __GFP_KSWAPD_RECLAIM work well under memcg pressure.
> >
> > Ok, but could you also explain in commit desc why it's a specific problem
> > to BPF hashtab?
> >
> > Afaik, there is plenty of other code using GFP_ATOMIC | __GFP_NOWARN outside
> > of BPF e.g. under net/, so it's a generic memcg problem?
>
> I'd be careful here and not change it all together.
>
> __GFP_NOWARN might be used to suppress warnings which otherwise would be too
> verbose and disruptive (especially if we talk about /net allocations in
> conjunction with netconsole) and might not mean a low/lower priority.
>
> > Why are lpm trie and local storage map for BPF not affected (at least I don't
> > see them covered in the patch)?
>
> Yes, it would be nice to fix this consistently over the bpf code.
> Yafang, would you mind to fix it too?
>

I will fix it.

-- 
Regards
Yafang