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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230405185650.239f9721f066aa480e83d543@linux-foundation.org>
 <20230405172524.e25b62e1c548a95564b1d324@linux-foundation.org>
 <20230406000854.25764-1-jaewon31.kim@samsung.com> <20230406014419epcms1p3f285b6e3fdbb1457db1bcbaab9e863be@epcms1p3>
 <CGME20230406000841epcas1p3630010a770682be0f1d540a448f3e00e@epcms1p2>
 <20230406021712epcms1p216f274040d25d18380668ffbfa809c48@epcms1p2>
 <20230405200923.9b0dca2165ef3335a0f6b112@linux-foundation.org>
 <CANDhNCq+mhhXjW7huYoQwUq18sRCcn6HjbPqh7mU9KrGyKeLfA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABdmKX0ZnQX5BPEJjqxwUsx=c8ykcX8Bjitak50DAYvfti6VFw@mail.gmail.com> <20230406163822.faae6a90b3aa4942df6e7442@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <20230406163822.faae6a90b3aa4942df6e7442@linux-foundation.org>
From:   "T.J. Mercier" <tjmercier@google.com>
Date:   Thu, 6 Apr 2023 17:00:34 -0700
Message-ID: <CABdmKX3NzTWHa3K_rna1iY+UERUrYK1Rq9WqUt9VQRaAKZsWwg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] dma-buf/heaps: system_heap: Avoid DoS by limiting
 single allocations to half of all memory
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     John Stultz <jstultz@google.com>, jaewon31.kim@samsung.com,
        "sumit.semwal@linaro.org" <sumit.semwal@linaro.org>,
        "daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch" <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>,
        "hannes@cmpxchg.org" <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        "mhocko@kernel.org" <mhocko@kernel.org>,
        "linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "jaewon31.kim@gmail.com" <jaewon31.kim@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Apr 6, 2023 at 4:38=E2=80=AFPM Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation=
.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 6 Apr 2023 16:27:28 -0700 "T.J. Mercier" <tjmercier@google.com> w=
rote:
>
> > > When you say "decide what's the largest reasonable size", I think it
> > > is difficult as with the variety of RAM sizes and buffer sizes I don'=
t
> > > think there's a fixed limit. Systems with more ram will use larger
> > > buffers for image/video capture buffers.  And yes, you're right that
> > > ram/2-1 in a single allocation is just as broken, but I'm not sure ho=
w
> > > to establish a better guard rail.
> > >
> > > thanks
> > > -john
> >
> > I like ENOMEM with the len / PAGE_SIZE > totalram_pages() check and
> > WARN_ON. We know for sure that's an invalid request, and it's pretty
> > cheap to check as opposed to trying a bunch of reclaim before failing.
>
> Well, if some buggy caller has gone and requested eleventy bigabytes of
:)
> memory, doing a lot of reclaiming before failing isn't really a problem
> - we don't want to optimize for this case!
>
The issue I see is that it could delay other non-buggy callers, or
cause reclaim that wouldn't have happened if we just outright rejected
a known-bad allocation request from the beginning.

> > For buffers smaller than that I agree with John in that I'm not sure
> > there's a definitive threshold.
>
> Well...  why do we want to do _anything_ here?  Why cater for buggy
> callers?  I think it's because "dma-buf behaves really badly with very
> large allocation requests".  Again, can we fix that instead?
>
There are a variety of different allocation strategies used by
different exporters so I don't think there's one dma-buf thing we
could fix for slow, large allocations in general. For the system_heap
in this patch it's really just alloc_pages. I'm saying I don't think
the kernel should ever ask alloc_pages for more memory than exists on
the system, which seems like a pretty reasonable sanity check to me.
Given that, I don't think we should do anything for buffers smaller
than totalram_pages() (except maybe to prevent OOM panics via
__GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL when we attempt to exhaust system memory on any
request - valid or otherwise).