Message-ID: <333cb52b-5b02-648e-af7a-090e23261801@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 22 Nov 2021 19:26:14 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.2.0
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Andrew Dona-Couch <andrew@donacou.ch>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Drew DeVault <sir@cmpwn.com>
Cc:     Ammar Faizi <ammarfaizi2@gnuweeb.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org,
        io_uring Mailing List <io-uring@vger.kernel.org>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
        Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@gmail.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org
References: <20211028080813.15966-1-sir@cmpwn.com>
 <CAFBCWQ+=2T4U7iNQz_vsBsGVQ72s+QiECndy_3AMFV98bMOLow@mail.gmail.com>
 <CFII8LNSW5XH.3OTIVFYX8P65Y@taiga>
 <593aea3b-e4a4-65ce-0eda-cb3885ff81cd@gnuweeb.org>
 <20211115203530.62ff33fdae14927b48ef6e5f@linux-foundation.org>
 <CFQZSHV700KV.18Y62SACP8KOO@taiga>
 <20211116114727.601021d0763be1f1efe2a6f9@linux-foundation.org>
 <CFRGQ58D9IFX.PEH1JI9FGHV4@taiga>
 <20211116133750.0f625f73a1e4843daf13b8f7@linux-foundation.org>
 <b84bc345-d4ea-96de-0076-12ff245c5e29@redhat.com>
 <8f219a64-a39f-45f0-a7ad-708a33888a3b@www.fastmail.com>
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Organization: Red Hat
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Increase default MLOCK_LIMIT to 8 MiB
In-Reply-To: <8f219a64-a39f-45f0-a7ad-708a33888a3b@www.fastmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 22.11.21 18:55, Andrew Dona-Couch wrote:
> Forgive me for jumping in to an already overburdened thread.  But can
> someone pushing back on this clearly explain the issue with applying
> this patch?

It will allow unprivileged users to easily and even "accidentally"
allocate more unmovable memory than it should in some environments. Such
limits exist for a reason. And there are ways for admins/distros to
tweak these limits if they know what they are doing.

> 
> The only concerns I've heard are that it doesn't go far enough.  That
> another strategy (that everyone seems to agree would be a fair bit more
> effort) could potentially achieve the same goal and then some.  Isn't
> that exactly what's meant by "don't let perfection be the enemy of the
> good"? The saying is not talking about literal perfection -- the idea is
> that you make progress where you can, and that incremental progress and
> broader changes are not necessarily in conflict.
> 
> This tiny patch could be a step in the right direction.  Why does this
> thread need dozens of replies?

Because it does something controversial. Send controversial patches,
receive many opinions, it's that simple.

This is not a step into the right direction. This is all just trying to
hide the fact that we're exposing FOLL_LONGTERM usage to random
unprivileged users.

Maybe we could instead try getting rid of FOLL_LONGTERM usage and the
memlock limit in io_uring altogether, for example, by using mmu
notifiers. But I'm no expert on the io_uring code.

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb