netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 00/13] bpf: Introduce selectable memcg for bpf map

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CALOAHbAp=g20rL0taUpQmTwymanArhO-u69Xw42s5ap39Esn=A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 8 Sep 2022 10:37:02 +0800
From:   Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com>
To:     Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>
Cc:     Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        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>,
        Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>,
        Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>, jolsa@...nel.org,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
        Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Zefan Li <lizefan.x@...edance.com>,
        Cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 00/13] bpf: Introduce selectable memcg for bpf map

On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 6:29 AM Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 07, 2022 at 05:43:31AM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 02, 2022 at 02:29:50AM +0000, Yafang Shao wrote:
> > ...
> > > This patchset tries to resolve the above two issues by introducing a
> > > selectable memcg to limit the bpf memory. Currently we only allow to
> > > select its ancestor to avoid breaking the memcg hierarchy further.
> > > Possible use cases of the selectable memcg as follows,
> >
> > As discussed in the following thread, there are clear downsides to an
> > interface which requires the users to specify the cgroups directly.
> >
> >  https://lkml.kernel.org/r/YwNold0GMOappUxc@slm.duckdns.org
> >
> > So, I don't really think this is an interface we wanna go for. I was hoping
> > to hear more from memcg folks in the above thread. Maybe ping them in that
> > thread and continue there?
>

Hi Roman,

> As I said previously, I don't like it, because it's an attempt to solve a non
> bpf-specific problem in a bpf-specific way.
>

Why do you still insist that bpf_map->memcg is not a bpf-specific
issue after so many discussions?
Do you charge the bpf-map's memory the same way as you charge the page
caches or slabs ?
No, you don't. You charge it in a bpf-specific way.

> Yes, memory cgroups are not great for accounting of shared resources, it's well
> known. This patchset looks like an attempt to "fix" it specifically for bpf maps
> in a particular cgroup setup. Honestly, I don't think it's worth the added
> complexity. Especially because a similar behaviour can be achieved simple
> by placing the task which creates the map into the desired cgroup.

Are you serious ?
Have you ever read the cgroup doc? Which clearly describe the "No
Internal Process Constraint".[1]
Obviously you can't place the task in the desired cgroup, i.e. the parent memcg.

[1] https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/cgroup-v2.txt

> Beatiful? Not. Neither is the proposed solution.
>

Is it really hard to admit a fault?

-- 
Regards
Yafang