Received: by 2002:a6b:fb09:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id h9csp3564532iog; Tue, 21 Jun 2022 01:03:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1vU2vPhsXnGaRjerGBWy0cvTe/y+Ge2/jd04zu3s8OCVekaapnhstUk9N08yK53zA5Xus0M X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:868b:b0:722:d84f:2c2f with SMTP id qa11-20020a170907868b00b00722d84f2c2fmr4545670ejc.289.1655798591457; Tue, 21 Jun 2022 01:03:11 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1655798591; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=S5WyYzyESJQFFNTuWsBrlgJXt3n+OH+mNBFf4qyE50m42vXa/PQjwtgTzrpzomB1IC a9Hji1NZyS8ZuBFnh5miPbZ7v/YDYftRbASupo7oRqXoAuUlBiv+qNM4Ply/mZtefe5e XBxvPROhOtf4I+MC8/gKTjBvqvPx34VAeRfUnBv1I9O57Ngjn6ltmXxGejnxrTtJK/F3 KgTZNeb2inrnoJgg1DDeI8a3n2n5ilTnrtnLnWbQZFJq24hD1lAAndnrqNmGSmVVvMNx +AQeb55Brwn4wnnslEUaZixa1OQn96tiC+nbjvj6XUtJtSik1RTuHY65mCNwY9u1jZs3 2aLA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:content-transfer-encoding:content-language :in-reply-to:mime-version:user-agent:date:message-id:from:references :cc:to:subject; bh=q8dxL4AyYrXYsfILscss2NOgwyNd1AQw4B03OK1tVyY=; b=02d7nkQhzowNCSqs6ZPp1dP/oMt72HMihHry5v9Iafd84GTaW5G/qGVLwtLmGuKoNk AoH0XSRvd6VIi+9MQBFh7NS4eXyNivcJfRc2cbY+XhmXXRUrKmigF5lbKrNI+JN9/d4+ ZZ+ybCy7dRLvEGHfXYHexDFZECJHA+WdBjrscAwSdnB/T+/0TZx8Qru90m440C/dsj9a tueE/68Q9EathUgKSLUEg4YvO/3Eh3UyG43QbYz3378LUhgWLl5bx8msIZg/aXVB46N8 IlTA3iC+4FSI+hdH514jlxKENPCwYLoO7eWC9iVwF7AMKUJgAV+Yhc1G8Brjm+jRPtPG 8N5g== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=QUARANTINE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=huawei.com Return-Path: Received: from out1.vger.email (out1.vger.email. [2620:137:e000::1:20]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id hs23-20020a1709073e9700b007157ddd2e51si17072970ejc.882.2022.06.21.01.02.45; Tue, 21 Jun 2022 01:03:11 -0700 (PDT) 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; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=QUARANTINE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=huawei.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1346963AbiFUHhd (ORCPT + 99 others); Tue, 21 Jun 2022 03:37:33 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:37664 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1346241AbiFUHh3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Jun 2022 03:37:29 -0400 Received: from szxga08-in.huawei.com (szxga08-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.255]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AC5D5E1C for ; Tue, 21 Jun 2022 00:37:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from canpemm500002.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.55]) by szxga08-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4LRywS1bWyz1KC5C; Tue, 21 Jun 2022 15:35:20 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.174.177.76] (10.174.177.76) by canpemm500002.china.huawei.com (7.192.104.244) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2375.24; Tue, 21 Jun 2022 15:37:25 +0800 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] mm/swapfile: make security_vm_enough_memory_mm() work as expected To: "Huang, Ying" CC: , , , References: <20220608144031.829-1-linmiaohe@huawei.com> <20220608144031.829-2-linmiaohe@huawei.com> <87r13jrdst.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com> <87letqpzm1.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com> From: Miaohe Lin Message-ID: <463fe0cd-504a-f887-0201-691bacd9e69d@huawei.com> Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2022 15:37:25 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87letqpzm1.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.174.177.76] X-ClientProxiedBy: dggems704-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.181) To canpemm500002.china.huawei.com (7.192.104.244) X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on lindbergh.monkeyblade.net Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2022/6/21 9:35, Huang, Ying wrote: > Miaohe Lin writes: > >> On 2022/6/20 15:31, Huang, Ying wrote: >>> Miaohe Lin writes: >>> >>>> security_vm_enough_memory_mm() checks whether a process has enough memory >>>> to allocate a new virtual mapping. And total_swap_pages is considered as >>>> available memory while swapoff tries to make sure there's enough memory >>>> that can hold the swapped out memory. But total_swap_pages contains the >>>> swap space that is being swapoff. So security_vm_enough_memory_mm() will >>>> success even if there's no memory to hold the swapped out memory because >>>> total_swap_pages always greater than or equal to p->pages. >>> >>> Per my understanding, swapoff will not allocate virtual mapping by >>> itself. But after swapoff, the overcommit limit could be exceeded. >>> security_vm_enough_memory_mm() is used to check that. For example, in a >>> system with 4GB memory and 8GB swap, and 10GB is in use, >>> >>> CommitLimit: 4+8 = 12GB >>> Committed_AS: 10GB >>> >>> security_vm_enough_memory_mm() in swapoff() will fail because >>> 10+8 = 18 > 12. This is expected because after swapoff, the overcommit >>> limit will be exceeded. >>> >>> If 3GB is in use, >>> >>> CommitLimit: 4+8 = 12GB >>> Committed_AS: 3GB >>> >>> security_vm_enough_memory_mm() in swapoff() will succeed because >>> 3+8 = 11 < 12. This is expected because after swapoff, the overcommit >>> limit will not be exceeded. >> >> In OVERCOMMIT_NEVER scene, I think you're right. >> >>> >>> So, what's the real problem of the original implementation? Can you >>> show it with an example as above? >> >> In OVERCOMMIT_GUESS scene, in a system with 4GB memory and 8GB swap, and 10GB is in use, >> pages below is 8GB, totalram_pages() + total_swap_pages is 12GB, so swapoff() will succeed >> instead of expected failure because 8 < 12. The overcommit limit is always *ignored* in the >> below case. >> >> if (sysctl_overcommit_memory == OVERCOMMIT_GUESS) { >> if (pages > totalram_pages() + total_swap_pages) >> goto error; >> return 0; >> } >> >> Or am I miss something? > > Per my understanding, with OVERCOMMIT_GUESS, the number of in-use pages > isn't checked at all. The only restriction is that the size of the > virtual mapping created should be less than total RAM + total swap Do you mean the only restriction is that the size of the virtual mapping *created every time* should be less than total RAM + total swap pages but *total virtual mapping* is not limited in OVERCOMMIT_GUESS scene? If so, the current behavior should be sane and I will drop this patch. Thanks! > pages. Because swapoff() will not create virtual mapping, so it's > expected that security_vm_enough_memory_mm() in swapoff() always > succeeds. > > Best Regards, > Huang, Ying > >> >> Thanks! >> >>> >>>> In order to fix it, p->pages should be retracted from total_swap_pages >>>> first and then check whether there's enough memory for inuse swap pages. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Miaohe Lin >>> >>> [snip] >>> >>> . >>> > > . >