Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To:     Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
        Dave Hansen via Libc-alpha <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>,
        Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>,
        Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Bae\, Chang Seok" <chang.seok.bae@intel.com>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Kyle Huey <me@kylehuey.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Keno Fischer <keno@juliacomputing.com>,
        Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>,
        Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Subject: Re: Candidate Linux ABI for Intel AMX and hypothetical new related features
In-Reply-To: <CAJvTdK=A64DQXjYkZgPebWb-V_p_HAM+jTZRLTyi1qrP9kucMg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20210415044258.GA6318@zn.tnic> <20210419141454.GE9093@zn.tnic>
 <CAJvTdK=p8mgO3xw9sRxu0c7NTNTG109M442b3UZh8TqLLfkC1Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210419191539.GH9093@zn.tnic>
 <CAJvTdK=VnG94ECcRVoUi8HrCbVEKc8X4_JmRTkqe+vTttf0Wsg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210419215809.GJ9093@zn.tnic>
 <CAJvTdKn6JHo02karEs0e5g+6SimS5VUcXKjCkX35WY+xkgAgxw@mail.gmail.com>
 <YIMmwhEr46VPAZa4@zn.tnic>
 <CAJvTdKnhXnynybS4eNEF_EtF26auyb-mhKLNd1D9_zvCrchZsw@mail.gmail.com>
 <874kf11yoz.ffs@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
 <CAJvTdKkYp+zP_9tna6YsrOz2_nmEUDLJaL_i-SNog0m2T9wZ=Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <87k0ntazyn.ffs@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
 <37833625-3e6b-5d93-cc4d-26164d06a0c6@intel.com>
 <CAJvTdKmqzO4P9k3jqRA=dR+B7yV72hZCiyC8HGQxDKZBnXgzZQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <9c8138eb-3956-e897-ed4e-426bf6663c11@intel.com>
 <87pmxk87th.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com>
 <939ec057-3851-d8fb-7b45-993fa07c4cb5@intel.com>
 <87r1i06ow2.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com>
 <263a58a9-26d5-4e55-b3e1-3718baf1b81d@www.fastmail.com>
 <87k0nraonu.ffs@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
 <CAJvTdK=A64DQXjYkZgPebWb-V_p_HAM+jTZRLTyi1qrP9kucMg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 22 May 2021 00:46:41 +0200
Message-ID: <878s47aeni.ffs@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, May 21 2021 at 18:07, Len Brown wrote:
> On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 3:10 PM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
> Regarding pre-allocation vs on-demand allocation, consider two scenarios:
>
> 1. Synchronous.  At process or thread start up time, prctl()
> synchronously allocates 8K context switch buffers.  Return code is 0
> -- good go go!  10 seconds later the program decides to create
> additional threads.  Woops. vmalloc failed, and the process
> synchronously dies.  bug filed.

No. pthread_create() will fail with -ENOMEM. A return value of
-ENOMEM is not a bug. 

If the application fails to check the error code then it's not the
kernels problem and not a kernel bug either.

> 2. On demand.  Same scenario, except vmalloc failure upon creation of
> those additional threads sends a SIGSEGV at the instruction where AMX
> is touched.  bug filed.
>
> Why ignore the 2nd bug and not ignore the 1st bug?

See above.

> My concern about synchronous allocation is that it will be very easy
> to abuse.  programs and threads can ask for buffers they will never
> use.  With on-demand allocation, we allocate buffers only if they are
> actually needed.

Programs ask for memory in various ways. The buffer is not any different
than any other memory allocation of the application/thread. It's
accounted for and when the limits are reached the allocation fails.

But it fails in a way which can be acted upon at the application level
and not in a way where the kernel has no other choice than killing the
whole process.

So where is the problem? 

Thanks,

        tglx