On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 04:12:16PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 04:05:29PM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 09:41:25AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 04:29:03PM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote: > > > > From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > Removing a PAGE_SIZE page from the direct map every time such page is > > > > allocated for a secret memory mapping will cause severe fragmentation of > > > > the direct map. This fragmentation can be reduced by using PMD-size pages > > > > as a pool for small pages for secret memory mappings. > > > > > > > > Add a gen_pool per secretmem inode and lazily populate this pool with > > > > PMD-size pages. > > > > > > What's the actual efficacy of this? Since the pmd is per inode, all I > > > need is a lot of inodes and we're in business to destroy the directmap, > > > no? > > > > > > Afaict there's no privs needed to use this, all a process needs is to > > > stay below the mlock limit, so a 'fork-bomb' that maps a single secret > > > page will utterly destroy the direct map. > > > > This indeed will cause 1G pages in the direct map to be split into 2M > > chunks, but I disagree with 'destroy' term here. Citing the cover letter > > of an earlier version of this series: > > It will drop them down to 4k pages. Given enough inodes, and allocating > only a single sekrit page per pmd, we'll shatter the directmap into 4k. Why? Secretmem allocates PMD-size page per inode and uses it as a pool of 4K pages for that inode. This way it ensures that __kernel_map_pages() is always called on PMD boundaries. -- Sincerely yours, Mike.
