From: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> To: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>, Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Re: Repeated fork() causes SLAB to grow without bound Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2013 06:37:25 -0400 [thread overview] Message-ID: <51ADC365.4010307@redhat.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20130603195003.GA31275@evergreen.ssec.wisc.edu> On 06/03/2013 03:50 PM, Daniel Forrest wrote: > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 11:29:54PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote: >> On 08/21/2012 11:20 PM, Michel Lespinasse wrote: >>> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 02:39:26AM -0700, Michel Lespinasse wrote: >>>> Instead of adding an atomic count for page references, we could limit >>>> the anon_vma stacking depth. In fork, we would only clone anon_vmas >>>> that have a low enough generation count. I think that's not great >>>> (adds a special case for the deep-fork-without-exec behavior), but >>>> still better than the atomic page reference counter. >>> >>> Here is an attached patch to demonstrate the idea. >>> >>> anon_vma_clone() is modified to return the length of the existing same_vma >>> anon vma chain, and we create a new anon_vma in the child only on the first >>> fork (this could be tweaked to allow up to a set number of forks, but >>> I think the first fork would cover all the common forking server cases). >> >> I suspect we need 2 or 3. >> >> Some forking servers first fork off one child, and have >> the original parent exit, in order to "background the server". >> That first child then becomes the parent to the real child >> processes that do the work. >> >> It is conceivable that we might need an extra level for >> processes that do something special with privilege dropping, >> namespace changing, etc... >> >> Even setting the threshold to 5 should be totally harmless, >> since the problem does not kick in until we have really >> long chains, like in Dan's bug report. > > I have been running with Michel's patch (with the threshold set to 5) > for quite a few months now and can confirm that it does indeed solve > my problem. I am not a kernel developer, so I would appreciate if one > of you could push this into the kernel tree. > > NOTE: I have attached Michel's patch with "(length > 1)" modified to > "(length > 5)" and added a "Tested-by:". Thank you for testing this. I believe this code should go into the Linux kernel, since it closes up what could be a denial of service attack (albeit a local one) with the anonvma code. > On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 02:39:26AM -0700, Michel Lespinasse wrote: >> Instead of adding an atomic count for page references, we could limit >> the anon_vma stacking depth. In fork, we would only clone anon_vmas >> that have a low enough generation count. I think that's not great >> (adds a special case for the deep-fork-without-exec behavior), but >> still better than the atomic page reference counter. > > Here is an attached patch to demonstrate the idea. > > anon_vma_clone() is modified to return the length of the existing same_vma > anon vma chain, and we create a new anon_vma in the child only on the first > fork (this could be tweaked to allow up to a set number of forks, but > I think the first fork would cover all the common forking server cases). > > Signed-off-by: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com> > Tested-by: Daniel Forrest <dan.forrest@ssec.wisc.edu> Reviewed-by: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> -- All rights reversed
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> To: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>, Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Re: Repeated fork() causes SLAB to grow without bound Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2013 06:37:25 -0400 [thread overview] Message-ID: <51ADC365.4010307@redhat.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20130603195003.GA31275@evergreen.ssec.wisc.edu> On 06/03/2013 03:50 PM, Daniel Forrest wrote: > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 11:29:54PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote: >> On 08/21/2012 11:20 PM, Michel Lespinasse wrote: >>> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 02:39:26AM -0700, Michel Lespinasse wrote: >>>> Instead of adding an atomic count for page references, we could limit >>>> the anon_vma stacking depth. In fork, we would only clone anon_vmas >>>> that have a low enough generation count. I think that's not great >>>> (adds a special case for the deep-fork-without-exec behavior), but >>>> still better than the atomic page reference counter. >>> >>> Here is an attached patch to demonstrate the idea. >>> >>> anon_vma_clone() is modified to return the length of the existing same_vma >>> anon vma chain, and we create a new anon_vma in the child only on the first >>> fork (this could be tweaked to allow up to a set number of forks, but >>> I think the first fork would cover all the common forking server cases). >> >> I suspect we need 2 or 3. >> >> Some forking servers first fork off one child, and have >> the original parent exit, in order to "background the server". >> That first child then becomes the parent to the real child >> processes that do the work. >> >> It is conceivable that we might need an extra level for >> processes that do something special with privilege dropping, >> namespace changing, etc... >> >> Even setting the threshold to 5 should be totally harmless, >> since the problem does not kick in until we have really >> long chains, like in Dan's bug report. > > I have been running with Michel's patch (with the threshold set to 5) > for quite a few months now and can confirm that it does indeed solve > my problem. I am not a kernel developer, so I would appreciate if one > of you could push this into the kernel tree. > > NOTE: I have attached Michel's patch with "(length > 1)" modified to > "(length > 5)" and added a "Tested-by:". Thank you for testing this. I believe this code should go into the Linux kernel, since it closes up what could be a denial of service attack (albeit a local one) with the anonvma code. > On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 02:39:26AM -0700, Michel Lespinasse wrote: >> Instead of adding an atomic count for page references, we could limit >> the anon_vma stacking depth. In fork, we would only clone anon_vmas >> that have a low enough generation count. I think that's not great >> (adds a special case for the deep-fork-without-exec behavior), but >> still better than the atomic page reference counter. > > Here is an attached patch to demonstrate the idea. > > anon_vma_clone() is modified to return the length of the existing same_vma > anon vma chain, and we create a new anon_vma in the child only on the first > fork (this could be tweaked to allow up to a set number of forks, but > I think the first fork would cover all the common forking server cases). > > Signed-off-by: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com> > Tested-by: Daniel Forrest <dan.forrest@ssec.wisc.edu> Reviewed-by: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> -- All rights reversed -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-06-04 10:37 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 75+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2012-08-16 2:46 Repeated fork() causes SLAB to grow without bound Daniel Forrest 2012-08-16 18:58 ` Rik van Riel 2012-08-16 18:58 ` Rik van Riel 2012-08-18 0:03 ` Daniel Forrest 2012-08-18 0:03 ` Daniel Forrest 2012-08-18 3:46 ` Rik van Riel 2012-08-18 3:46 ` Rik van Riel 2012-08-18 4:07 ` Daniel Forrest 2012-08-18 4:07 ` Daniel Forrest 2012-08-18 4:10 ` Rik van Riel 2012-08-18 4:10 ` Rik van Riel 2012-08-20 8:00 ` Hugh Dickins 2012-08-20 8:00 ` Hugh Dickins 2012-08-20 9:39 ` Michel Lespinasse 2012-08-20 9:39 ` Michel Lespinasse 2012-08-20 11:11 ` Andi Kleen 2012-08-20 11:11 ` Andi Kleen 2012-08-20 11:17 ` Rik van Riel 2012-08-20 11:17 ` Rik van Riel 2012-08-20 11:53 ` Michel Lespinasse 2012-08-20 11:53 ` Michel Lespinasse 2012-08-20 19:11 ` Michel Lespinasse 2012-08-20 19:11 ` Michel Lespinasse 2012-08-22 3:20 ` [RFC PATCH] " Michel Lespinasse 2012-08-22 3:20 ` Michel Lespinasse 2012-08-22 3:29 ` Rik van Riel 2012-08-22 3:29 ` Rik van Riel 2013-06-03 19:50 ` Daniel Forrest 2013-06-03 19:50 ` Daniel Forrest 2013-06-04 10:37 ` Rik van Riel [this message] 2013-06-04 10:37 ` Rik van Riel 2013-06-05 14:02 ` Andrea Arcangeli 2013-06-05 14:02 ` Andrea Arcangeli 2014-11-14 16:30 ` [PATCH] " Daniel Forrest 2014-11-14 16:30 ` Daniel Forrest 2014-11-18 0:02 ` Andrew Morton 2014-11-18 0:02 ` Andrew Morton 2014-11-18 1:41 ` Daniel Forrest 2014-11-18 1:41 ` Daniel Forrest 2014-11-18 2:41 ` Rik van Riel 2014-11-18 2:41 ` Rik van Riel 2014-11-18 20:19 ` Andrew Morton 2014-11-18 20:19 ` Andrew Morton 2014-11-18 22:15 ` Konstantin Khlebnikov 2014-11-18 22:15 ` Konstantin Khlebnikov 2014-11-18 23:02 ` Konstantin Khlebnikov 2014-11-18 23:50 ` Vlastimil Babka 2014-11-18 23:50 ` Vlastimil Babka 2014-11-19 14:36 ` Konstantin Khlebnikov 2014-11-19 14:36 ` Konstantin Khlebnikov 2014-11-19 16:09 ` Vlastimil Babka 2014-11-19 16:09 ` Vlastimil Babka 2014-11-19 16:58 ` Konstantin Khlebnikov 2014-11-19 16:58 ` Konstantin Khlebnikov 2014-11-19 23:14 ` Michel Lespinasse 2014-11-19 23:14 ` Michel Lespinasse 2014-11-20 14:42 ` Konstantin Khlebnikov 2014-11-20 14:42 ` Konstantin Khlebnikov 2014-11-20 14:50 ` Rik van Riel 2014-11-20 14:50 ` Rik van Riel 2014-11-20 15:03 ` Konstantin Khlebnikov 2014-11-20 15:03 ` Konstantin Khlebnikov 2014-11-24 7:09 ` Konstantin Khlebnikov 2014-11-25 10:59 ` Michal Hocko 2014-11-25 10:59 ` Michal Hocko 2014-11-25 12:13 ` Konstantin Khlebnikov 2014-11-25 15:00 ` Michal Hocko 2014-11-25 15:00 ` Michal Hocko 2014-11-26 17:35 ` Michal Hocko 2014-11-26 17:35 ` Michal Hocko 2014-12-05 15:44 ` Jerome Marchand 2014-11-20 15:27 ` Michel Lespinasse 2014-11-20 15:27 ` Michel Lespinasse 2014-11-19 2:48 ` Rik van Riel 2014-11-19 2:48 ` Rik van Riel
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=51ADC365.4010307@redhat.com \ --to=riel@redhat.com \ --cc=aarcange@redhat.com \ --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \ --cc=hughd@google.com \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \ --cc=walken@google.com \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.