On Mon 06-02-23 14:32:37, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > On Mon, Feb 06, 2023 at 07:40:55PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > (a) kind of destroys the point of this as a sandboxing tool > > > > It is not so harmful to use memory that someone else has been charged > > with allocating. > > > > But it is harmful to pin memory if someone else is charged for the > > pin. It means it is unpredictable how much memory a sandbox can > > actually lock down. > > > > Plus we have the double accounting problem, if 1000 processes in > > different cgroups open the tmpfs and all pin the memory then cgroup A > > will be charged 1000x for the memory and hit its limit, possibly > > creating a DOS from less priv to more priv > > Let's hear what memcg people think about it. I'm not a fan of disassociating > the ownership and locker of the same page but it is true that actively > increasing locked consumption on a remote cgroup is awkward too. One thing that is not really clear to me is whether those pins do actually have any "ownership". The interface itself doesn't talk about anything like that and so it seems perfectly fine to unpin from a completely different context then pinning. If there is no enforcement then Tejun is right and relying on memcg ownership is likely the only reliable way to use for tracking. The downside is sharing obviously but this is the same problem we already do deal with with shared pages. Another thing that is not really clear to me is how the limit is actually going to be used in practice. As there is no concept of a reclaim for pins then I can imagine that it would be quite easy to reach the hard limit and essentially DoS any further use of pins. Cross cgroup pinning would make it even worse because it could become a DoS vector very easily. Practically speaking what tends to be a corner case in the memcg limit world would be norm for pin based limit. Or am I misunderstanding something here? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
