Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 30 Jan 2018 10:57:39 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To:     Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
Cc:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>,
        Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>,
        David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
        netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, coreteam@netfilter.org,
        netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
        Yang Shi <yang.s@alibaba-inc.com>,
        syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, guro@fb.com,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [netfilter-core] kernel panic: Out of memory and no killable
 processes... (2)
Message-ID: <20180130095739.GV21609@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <201801290020.w0T0KK8V015938@www262.sakura.ne.jp>
 <20180129072357.GD5906@breakpoint.cc>
 <20180129082649.sysf57wlp7i7ltb2@node.shutemov.name>
 <20180129165722.GF5906@breakpoint.cc>
 <20180129182811.fze4vrb5zd5cojmr@node.shutemov.name>
 <20180129223522.GG5906@breakpoint.cc>
 <20180130075226.GL21609@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20180130081127.GH5906@breakpoint.cc>
 <20180130082817.cbax5qj4mxancx4b@node.shutemov.name>
 <CACT4Y+bFKwoxopr1dwnc7OHUoHy28ksVguqtMY6tD=aRh-7LyQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CACT4Y+bFKwoxopr1dwnc7OHUoHy28ksVguqtMY6tD=aRh-7LyQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue 30-01-18 10:02:34, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 9:28 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov
> <kirill@shutemov.name> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 09:11:27AM +0100, Florian Westphal wrote:
> >> Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote:
> >> > On Mon 29-01-18 23:35:22, Florian Westphal wrote:
> >> > > Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill@shutemov.name> wrote:
> >> > [...]
> >> > > > I hate what I'm saying, but I guess we need some tunable here.
> >> > > > Not sure what exactly.
> >> > >
> >> > > Would memcg help?
> >> >
> >> > That really depends. I would have to check whether vmalloc path obeys
> >> > __GFP_ACCOUNT (I suspect it does except for page tables allocations but
> >> > that shouldn't be a big deal). But then the other potential problem is
> >> > the life time of the xt_table_info (or other potentially large) data
> >> > structures. Are they bound to any process life time.
> >>
> >> No.
> >
> > Well, IIUC they bound to net namespace life time, so killing all
> > proccesses in the namespace would help to get memory back. :)
> 
> ... unless the namespace is mounted into file system.
> 
> Let's start with NOWARN as that's what kernel generally uses for
> allocations with user-controllable size. ENOMEM is roughly as
> informative as the WARNING message in this case.

You want __GFP_NORETRY but that is not _fully_ supported by kvmalloc
right now. More specifically kvmalloc doesn't guanratee that the request
will not trigger the OOM killer (like regular __GFP_NORETRY). This is
because of internal vmalloc restrictions. If you are however OK to
simply bail out in most cases then __GFP_NORETRY should work reasonably
fine.

> I think we also need to consider setting up memory cgroup for
> syzkaller test processes (we do RLIMIT_AS, but that's weak).

Well, this is not about syzkaller, it merely pointed out a potential
DoS... And that has to be addressed somehow.

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs