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:   Wed, 4 May 2022 16:10:01 +0200
From:   Michal =?iso-8859-1?Q?Koutn=FD?= <mkoutny@suse.com>
To:     Vasily Averin <vvs@openvz.org>
Cc:     Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>, kernel@openvz.org,
        Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: kernfs memcg accounting
Message-ID: <20220504141001.GA10890@blackbody.suse.cz>
References: <7e867cb0-89d6-402c-33d2-9b9ba0ba1523@openvz.org>
 <20220427140153.GC9823@blackbody.suse.cz>
 <7509fa9f-9d15-2f29-cb2f-ac0e8d99a948@openvz.org>
 <YnBLge4ZQNbbxufc@blackbook>
 <52a9f35b-458b-44c4-7fc8-d05c8db0c73f@openvz.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <52a9f35b-458b-44c4-7fc8-d05c8db0c73f@openvz.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, May 04, 2022 at 12:00:18PM +0300, Vasily Averin <vvs@openvz.org> wrote:
> My patches protect the host mostly from misuse, when someone creates
> a huge number of nedevices inside a container.

Understood.

> Frankly speaking I do not see a big difference between memcg of current process,
> memcg of newly created child and memcg of its parent.

I agree that's not substantial difference. It's relevant for outer
entities "injecting" something into a subtree.
As I wrote previously, charging to the creator in the generic case is
sensible.

> As far as I understand, Roman chose the parent memcg because it was a special
> case of creating a new memory group. He temporally changed active memcg
> in mem_cgroup_css_alloc() and properly accounted all required memcg-specific
> allocations.

> However, he ignored accounting for a rather large struct mem_cgroup
> therefore I think we can do not worry about 128 bytes of kernfs node.

Are you referring to the current code (>= v5.18-rc2)? All big structs
related to mem_cgroup should be accounted. What is ignored?

> Primary I mean here struct mem_cgroup allocation in mem_cgroup_alloc().

Just note that memory controller may not be always enabled so
cgroup_mkdir != mem_cgroup_alloc().

> However, I think we need to take into account any other distributions called
> inside cgroup_mkdir: struct cgroup and kernefs node in common part and 
> any other cgroup-cpecific allocations in other .css_alloc functions.
> They all can be called from inside container, allocates non-accountable
> memory and by this way theoretically can be misused.

Also note that (if you're purely on unified hierachy) you can protect
against that with cgroup.max.descendants and cgroup.max.depth.

Thanks,
Michal