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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <00000000000051ee78057cc4d98f@google.com> <CACT4Y+YX3=OLqfmWwhHVCQz+HwE=53VH9c1E2M+rgbF=UVTV5A@mail.gmail.com>
 <ab2fb696-8d3b-9720-a8a0-99c66a080605@colorfullife.com> <CACT4Y+Y-c7FgSTKyHqpRZu3eKLo5QfXy10axTSwWkU4MUgjFgw@mail.gmail.com>
 <87614226-e895-c3a3-3626-b0fbe7e191be@colorfullife.com> <CACT4Y+bU4mLF1tEhw6mKf1m1W63OGvaFhAsTrpTW0M5MFXekRQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACT4Y+Zynq-URqgJNyCZyTPM80GU8DndtKv=BFDU9_U=f0KceA@mail.gmail.com> <cc088b05-7bc9-778e-30b9-4b8720314001@colorfullife.com>
In-Reply-To: <cc088b05-7bc9-778e-30b9-4b8720314001@colorfullife.com>
From:   Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
Date:   Thu, 3 Jan 2019 14:18:57 -0800
Message-ID: <CALvZod7RtD7zcN48S+duFtjLUsSJrmXUqQawh6=ziw62gvOQjg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: general protection fault in put_pid
To:     Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>
Cc:     Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
        syzbot+1145ec2e23165570c3ac@syzkaller.appspotmail.com,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
        ktsanaktsidis@zendesk.com, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
        syzkaller-bugs <syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Manfred,

On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 4:26 AM Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com> wrote:
>
> Hello Dmitry,
>
> On 12/23/18 10:57 AM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> >
> > I can reproduce this infinite memory consumption with the C program:
> > https://gist.githubusercontent.com/dvyukov/03ec54b3429ade16fa07bf8b2379aff3/raw/ae4f654e279810de2505e8fa41b73dc1d77778e6/gistfile1.txt
> >
> > But this is working as intended, right? It just creates infinite
> > number of large semaphore sets, which reasonably consumes infinite
> > amount of memory.
> > Except that it also violates the memcg bound and a process can have
> > effectively unlimited amount of such "drum memory" in semaphores.
>
> Yes, this is as intended:
>
> If you call semget(), then you can use memory, up to the limits in
> /proc/sys/kernel/sem.
>
> Memcg is not taken into account, an admin must set /proc/sys/kernel/sem.
>
> The default are "infinite amount of memory allowed", as this is the most
> sane default: We had a logic that tried to autotune (i.e.: a new
> namespace "inherits" a fraction of the parent namespaces memory limits),
> but this we more or less always wrong.
>
>

What's the disadvantage of setting the limits in /proc/sys/kernel/sem
high and let the task's memcg limits the number of semaphore a process
can create? Please note that the memory underlying shmget and msgget
is already accounted to memcg.

thanks,
Shakeel