Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Fri, 1 Apr 2022 14:14:44 -0700
From:   Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>
To:     Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>
Cc:     Vasily Averin <vasily.averin@linux.dev>,
        Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org>, kernel@openvz.org,
        Jozsef Kadlecsik <kadlec@netfilter.org>,
        netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH nft] nft: memcg accounting for dynamically allocated
 objects
Message-ID: <YkdrRAiO1P7segcd@carbon.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
References: <bf4b8fe3-6dd6-4f3a-12f4-1b5bf2e45783@linux.dev>
 <e730480d-9396-6486-ab98-67ecb683e819@linux.dev>
 <20220401120342.GC9545@breakpoint.cc>
 <7bfa2e2e-b22d-7561-661b-41ef7714caf5@linux.dev>
 <20220401193159.GB28321@breakpoint.cc>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220401193159.GB28321@breakpoint.cc>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Apr 01, 2022 at 09:31:59PM +0200, Florian Westphal wrote:
> Vasily Averin <vasily.averin@linux.dev> wrote:
> > > Same problem as connlimit, can be called from packet path.
> > > Basically all GFP_ATOMIC are suspicious.
> > > 
> > > Not sure how to resolve this, similar mechanics in iptables world (e.g.
> > > connlimit or SET target) don't use memcg accounting.
> > > 
> > > Perhaps for now resend with only the GFP_KERNEL parts converted?
> > > Those are safe.
> > 
> > It is safe for packet path too, _ACCOUNT allocation will not be able to find memcg
> > in case of "!in_task()" context.
> > On the other hand any additional checks on such path will affect performance.
> 
> I'm not sure this works with ksoftirqd serving network stack?
> 
> > Could you please estimate how often is this code used in the case of nft vs packet path?
> 
> It depends on user configuration.
> Update from packet path is used for things like port knocking or other
> dyanamic filter lists, or somehing like Limiting connections to x-per-address/subnet and so on.
> 
> > If the opposite is the case, then I can add __GFP_ACCOUNT flag depending on in_task() check.
> 
> But what task/memcg is used for the accounting in that case?

Root memcg/no accounting, which is the same.

There is a way to account for a specific memcg in such cases, it's used for
bpf maps, for example. We save a pointer to the memcg which created the map and
charge it for all allocations from a !in_task context. But the performance can
be affected, so let's not do without regression tests and a serious need.

Thanks!