MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <Y/UEkNn0O65Pfi4e@nvidia.com> <Y/UIURDjR9pv+gzx@slm.duckdns.org>
 <Y/Ua6VcNe/DFh7X4@nvidia.com> <Y/UfS8TDIXhUlJ/I@slm.duckdns.org>
 <Y/UiQmuVwh2eqrfA@nvidia.com> <87o7pmnd0p.fsf@nvidia.com> <Y/YRJNwwvqp7nKKt@nvidia.com>
 <87k009nvnr.fsf@nvidia.com> <Y/bHNO7A8T3QQ5T+@nvidia.com> <CABdmKX18MY19bnsxN5W38Z9zmoaZx+S4+zzN_5XCYDBruwPrLg@mail.gmail.com>
 <Y/eiLBo88pgr2IUm@nvidia.com>
In-Reply-To: <Y/eiLBo88pgr2IUm@nvidia.com>
From:   Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.com>
Date:   Thu, 23 Feb 2023 10:03:50 -0800
Message-ID: <CAJD7tkadBRP22qP63-SjKSch1im9sHLoMzc6c2h10+ggbuxqMg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/19] mm: Introduce a cgroup for pinned memory
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
Cc:     "T.J. Mercier" <tjmercier@google.com>,
        Alistair Popple <apopple@nvidia.com>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jhubbard@nvidia.com,
        hannes@cmpxchg.org, surenb@google.com, mkoutny@suse.com,
        daniel@ffwll.ch, "Daniel P . Berrange" <berrange@redhat.com>,
        Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>,
        Zefan Li <lizefan.x@bytedance.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 9:28 AM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 09:18:23AM -0800, T.J. Mercier wrote:
>
> > > Solving that problem means figuring out when every cgroup stops using
> > > the memory - pinning or not. That seems to be very costly.
> > >
> > This is the current behavior of accounting for memfds, and I suspect
> > any kind of shared memory.
> >
> > If cgroup A creates a memfd, maps and faults in pages, shares the
> > memfd with cgroup B and then A unmaps and closes the memfd, then
> > cgroup A is still charged for the pages it faulted in.
>
> As we discussed, as long as the memory is swappable then eventually
> memory pressure on cgroup A will evict the memfd pages and then cgroup
> B will swap it in and be charged for it.

I am not familiar with memfd, but based on
mem_cgroup_swapin_charge_folio() it seems like if cgroup B swapped in
the pages they will remain charged to cgroup A, unless cgroup A is
removed/offlined. Am I missing something?

>
> > FWIW this is also the behavior I was trying to use to attribute
> > dma-buffers to their original allocators. Whoever touches it first
> > gets charged as long as the memory is alive somewhere.
> >
> > Can't we do the same thing for pins?
>
> If pins are tracked independently from memcg then definately not,
> a process in cgroup A should never be able to make a charge on cgroup
> B as a matter of security.
>
> If pins are part of the memcg then we can't always turn the pin
> request in to a NOP - the current cgroup always has to be charged for
> the memory. Otherwise what is the point from a security perspective?
>
> Jason