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;
Message-ID: <1686fd2d-d9c3-ec12-32df-8c4c5ae26b08@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 13 Apr 2022 18:24:56 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.6.2
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 04/13] mm/shmem: Restrict MFD_INACCESSIBLE memory
 against RLIMIT_MEMLOCK
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
Cc:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Chao Peng <chao.p.peng@linux.intel.com>,
        kvm list <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>,
        "J . Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>,
        Steven Price <steven.price@arm.com>,
        "Maciej S . Szmigiero" <mail@maciej.szmigiero.name>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        Vishal Annapurve <vannapurve@google.com>,
        Yu Zhang <yu.c.zhang@linux.intel.com>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
        "Nakajima, Jun" <jun.nakajima@intel.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
References: <20220310140911.50924-1-chao.p.peng@linux.intel.com>
 <20220310140911.50924-5-chao.p.peng@linux.intel.com>
 <Yk8L0CwKpTrv3Rg3@google.com>
 <02e18c90-196e-409e-b2ac-822aceea8891@www.fastmail.com>
 <YlB3Z8fqJ+67a2Ck@google.com>
 <7ab689e7-e04d-5693-f899-d2d785b09892@redhat.com>
 <20220412143636.GG64706@ziepe.ca>
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Organization: Red Hat
In-Reply-To: <20220412143636.GG64706@ziepe.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 12.04.22 16:36, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 08, 2022 at 08:54:02PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> 
>> RLIMIT_MEMLOCK was the obvious candidate, but as we discovered int he
>> past already with secretmem, it's not 100% that good of a fit (unmovable
>> is worth than mlocked). But it gets the job done for now at least.
> 
> No, it doesn't. There are too many different interpretations how
> MELOCK is supposed to work
> 
> eg VFIO accounts per-process so hostile users can just fork to go past
> it.
> 
> RDMA is per-process but uses a different counter, so you can double up
> 
> iouring is per-user and users a 3rd counter, so it can triple up on
> the above two

Thanks for that summary, very helpful.

> 
>> So I'm open for alternative to limit the amount of unmovable memory we
>> might allocate for user space, and then we could convert seretmem as well.
> 
> I think it has to be cgroup based considering where we are now :\

Most probably. I think the important lessons we learned are that

* mlocked != unmovable.
* RLIMIT_MEMLOCK should most probably never have been abused for
  unmovable memory (especially, long-term pinning)


-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb