From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A25E4C433EF for ; Tue, 21 Jun 2022 07:47:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1347297AbiFUHnw (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Jun 2022 03:43:52 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:42218 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1346326AbiFUHnC (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Jun 2022 03:43:02 -0400 Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 889BCE23 for ; Tue, 21 Jun 2022 00:43:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1655797381; x=1687333381; h=from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to: message-id:mime-version; bh=8DX6CzI2HQrN8SkpJ6T0Nf+sXlM1pgRiQumruJPH9mA=; b=BkoYmzpfM1Cmn5TK2+IHTntnr67uSB1GFeCKuHvE2wb+sxcYS0JzQWVK jmt8HEsYHqPIN1yF1RuZkSx4ibD/MyVB6rUqMRgnUhmMVxpCcyGXh96/p iqKto2JpAYSn5HY3nMGA36ek8fp4nW2AmVoeI/ZHYg26OdhLbYbNJC7tj Uyi03n7YBmXkA8j3YffHvYHKR202a/b5mlaahl0jEmUkRgC5G7aLJzTtu DP0SqIU8hb+po4UF3qgTvYWBaEg0RpJBK1DB8nYN/rC95jSXFKDpY2JQ3 aRVryMUVuPVW555enwaVVmRlsy/I8smc5dfM7suFRjlOdW6MfKvMIPISi Q==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6400,9594,10384"; a="268772631" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.92,209,1650956400"; d="scan'208";a="268772631" Received: from fmsmga006.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.20]) by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 21 Jun 2022 00:43:00 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.92,209,1650956400"; d="scan'208";a="833455551" Received: from yhuang6-desk2.sh.intel.com (HELO yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com) ([10.239.13.94]) by fmsmga006-auth.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 21 Jun 2022 00:42:59 -0700 From: "Huang, Ying" To: Miaohe Lin Cc: , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] mm/swapfile: make security_vm_enough_memory_mm() work as expected References: <20220608144031.829-1-linmiaohe@huawei.com> <20220608144031.829-2-linmiaohe@huawei.com> <87r13jrdst.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com> <87letqpzm1.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com> <463fe0cd-504a-f887-0201-691bacd9e69d@huawei.com> Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2022 15:42:27 +0800 In-Reply-To: <463fe0cd-504a-f887-0201-691bacd9e69d@huawei.com> (Miaohe Lin's message of "Tue, 21 Jun 2022 15:37:25 +0800") Message-ID: <87pmj2ea3g.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ascii Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Miaohe Lin writes: > On 2022/6/21 9:35, Huang, Ying wrote: >> Miaohe Lin writes: >> >>> On 2022/6/20 15:31, Huang, Ying wrote: >>>> Miaohe Lin writes: >>>> >>>>> security_vm_enough_memory_mm() checks whether a process has enough memory >>>>> to allocate a new virtual mapping. And total_swap_pages is considered as >>>>> available memory while swapoff tries to make sure there's enough memory >>>>> that can hold the swapped out memory. But total_swap_pages contains the >>>>> swap space that is being swapoff. So security_vm_enough_memory_mm() will >>>>> success even if there's no memory to hold the swapped out memory because >>>>> total_swap_pages always greater than or equal to p->pages. >>>> >>>> Per my understanding, swapoff will not allocate virtual mapping by >>>> itself. But after swapoff, the overcommit limit could be exceeded. >>>> security_vm_enough_memory_mm() is used to check that. For example, in a >>>> system with 4GB memory and 8GB swap, and 10GB is in use, >>>> >>>> CommitLimit: 4+8 = 12GB >>>> Committed_AS: 10GB >>>> >>>> security_vm_enough_memory_mm() in swapoff() will fail because >>>> 10+8 = 18 > 12. This is expected because after swapoff, the overcommit >>>> limit will be exceeded. >>>> >>>> If 3GB is in use, >>>> >>>> CommitLimit: 4+8 = 12GB >>>> Committed_AS: 3GB >>>> >>>> security_vm_enough_memory_mm() in swapoff() will succeed because >>>> 3+8 = 11 < 12. This is expected because after swapoff, the overcommit >>>> limit will not be exceeded. >>> >>> In OVERCOMMIT_NEVER scene, I think you're right. >>> >>>> >>>> So, what's the real problem of the original implementation? Can you >>>> show it with an example as above? >>> >>> In OVERCOMMIT_GUESS scene, in a system with 4GB memory and 8GB swap, and 10GB is in use, >>> pages below is 8GB, totalram_pages() + total_swap_pages is 12GB, so swapoff() will succeed >>> instead of expected failure because 8 < 12. The overcommit limit is always *ignored* in the >>> below case. >>> >>> if (sysctl_overcommit_memory == OVERCOMMIT_GUESS) { >>> if (pages > totalram_pages() + total_swap_pages) >>> goto error; >>> return 0; >>> } >>> >>> Or am I miss something? >> >> Per my understanding, with OVERCOMMIT_GUESS, the number of in-use pages >> isn't checked at all. The only restriction is that the size of the >> virtual mapping created should be less than total RAM + total swap > > Do you mean the only restriction is that the size of the virtual mapping > *created every time* should be less than total RAM + total swap pages but > *total virtual mapping* is not limited in OVERCOMMIT_GUESS scene? If so, > the current behavior should be sane and I will drop this patch. Yes. This is my understanding. Best Regards, Huang, Ying > Thanks! > >> pages. Because swapoff() will not create virtual mapping, so it's >> expected that security_vm_enough_memory_mm() in swapoff() always >> succeeds. >> >> Best Regards, >> Huang, Ying >> >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>>> >>>>> In order to fix it, p->pages should be retracted from total_swap_pages >>>>> first and then check whether there's enough memory for inuse swap pages. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Miaohe Lin >>>> >>>> [snip] >>>> >>>> . >>>> >> >> . >>