On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 5:43 AM, Michal Hocko <mho...@suse.cz> wrote: > On Fri 17-04-15 11:54:42, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 2:19 AM, Michal Hocko <mho...@suse.cz> wrote: >> > On Thu 16-04-15 10:04:17, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >> >> On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 8:01 AM, David Herrmann <dh.herrm...@gmail.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> > Hi >> >> > >> >> > On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Andy Lutomirski <l...@amacapital.net> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> Whose memcg does the pool use? >> >> > >> >> > The pool-owner's (i.e., the receiver's). >> >> > >> >> >> If it's the receiver's, and if the >> >> >> receiver can configure a memcg, then it seems that even a single >> >> >> receiver could probably cause the sender to block for an unlimited >> >> >> amount of time. >> >> > >> >> > How? Which of those calls can block? I don't see how that can happen. >> >> >> >> I admit I don't fully understand memcg, but vfs_iter_write is >> >> presumably going to need to get write access to the target pool page, >> >> and that, in turn, will need that page to exist in memory and to be >> >> writable, which may need to page it in and/or allocate a page. If >> >> that uses the receiver's memcg (as it should), then the receiver can >> >> make it block. Even if it doesn't use the receiver's memcg, it can >> >> trigger direct reclaim, I think. >> > >> > Yes, memcg direct reclaim might trigger but we are no longer waiting for >> > the OOM victim from non page fault paths so the time is bounded. It >> > still might a quite some time, though, depending on the amount of work >> > done in the direct reclaim. >> >> Is that still true if OOM notifiers are involved? I've lost track of >> what changed there. > > memcg OOM is not triggered from get_user_pages. See 519e52473ebe (mm: > memcg: enable memcg OOM killer only for user faults) > >> Any any event, I'm not entirely convinced that having a broadcast send >> cause, say, PID 1 to block until an unbounded number of pages in a >> potentially unbounded number of memcgs are reclaimed is a good idea. > > This deserves a clarification I guess. It is the memcg of the current > task which gets charged during the page fault normally. So if PID1 tries > to fault the memory in it will be its (most probably root) memcg which > gets charged. If the memory was already charged to a different task's > memcg and then it got swapped out, though, the PID1 would indeed wait > for the reclaim in the target memcg to swap the page back in. > > In either case this sounds like a potential problem, because tasks > could hide their memory charges from the limit or PID1 context could > be blocked. But maybe I just misunderstood the and an uncharged memory > cannot be used for the buffer. >
Hmm. One of the explicit design goals of kdbus is for sandboxing, i.e. creating a restricted view ("endpoint") and letting sandboxed things talk to non-sandboxed things outside through that restricted view. Given that, the ability for a broadcast receiver to cause a sender (PID 1?) to allocate root-memcg pages seems like it could be a problem. --Andy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/