On 06/18/16 00:59, Doug Ledford wrote:
> On 6/13/2016 3:44 PM, Topi Miettinen wrote:
>> Track maximum size of locked memory, presented in /proc/self/limits.
>
> You should have probably Cc:ed everyone on the cover letter and probably
> patch 1 of this series. This patch is hard to decipher without the
> additional context of those items. However, that said, I think I see
Yes, I didn't know to CC everybody involved, sorry about that.
> what you are doing. But your wording of your comments below is bad:
>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
>> index feb9bb7..d3f3c9f 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/sched.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/sched.h
>> @@ -3378,10 +3378,16 @@ static inline unsigned long rlimit_max(unsigned int limit)
>> return task_rlimit_max(current, limit);
>> }
>>
>> +static inline void task_bump_rlimit(struct task_struct *tsk,
>> + unsigned int limit, unsigned long r)
>> +{
>> + if (READ_ONCE(tsk->signal->rlim_curmax[limit]) < r)
>> + tsk->signal->rlim_curmax[limit] = r;
>> +}
>> +
>> static inline void bump_rlimit(unsigned int limit, unsigned long r)
>> {
>> - if (READ_ONCE(current->signal->rlim_curmax[limit]) < r)
>> - current->signal->rlim_curmax[limit] = r;
>> + return task_bump_rlimit(current, limit, r);
>> }
>>
>> #ifdef CONFIG_CPU_FREQ
>> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
>> index 46ecce4..192001e 100644
>> --- a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
>> +++ b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
>> @@ -76,6 +76,9 @@ static int bpf_map_charge_memlock(struct bpf_map *map)
>> return -EPERM;
>> }
>> map->user = user;
>> + /* XXX resource limits apply per task, not per user */
>> + bump_rlimit(RLIMIT_MEMLOCK, atomic_long_read(&user->locked_vm) <<
>> + PAGE_SHIFT);
>
> No, these resource limits do not apply per task. They are per user.
The problem could be that the manual pages do not say that but more to
the opposite direction. For example, setrlimit(2) says that some limits
(RLIMIT_MEMLOCK only for SHML_LOCK and others like RLIMIT_MSGQUEUE)
apply indeed per user but others are per process. This note in mlock(2)
could be also easily read as specifying a per process limit:
"Since Linux 2.6.9, no limits are placed on the amount of memory that
a privileged process can lock and the RLIMIT_MEMLOCK soft resource
limit instead defines a limit on how much memory an unprivileged
process may lock."
It's also confusing (to me, at least) that the limit values are stored
in per task structures, so the actual limits can be different for each
process for the same user.
The limits are also sometimes compared to per task
current->mm->pinned_vm, in other places to current->mm->locked_vm and in
still other places to per user user->locked_vm. How can the same limit
apply to all of them at the same time? I'd think the user can actually
lock many times the limit because of this.
Anyway, assuming that the actual implementation is always correct and
unchangeable due to ABI stability reasons, it's useless to add XXX
comments like I did.
> However, you are doing maximum usage accounting on a per-task basis by
> adding a new counter to the signal struct of the task. Fine, but your
> comments need to reflect that instead of the confusing comment above.
> In addition, your function name is horrible for what you are doing. A
> person reading this function will think that you are bumping the actual
> rlimit on the task, which is not what you are doing. You are performing
> per-task accounting of MEMLOCK memory. The actual permission checks are
> per-user, and the primary accounting is per-user. So, really, this is
> just a nice little feature that provides a more granular per-task usage
> (but not control) so a user can see where their overall memlock memory
> is being used. Fine. I would reword the comment something like this:
>
> /* XXX resource is tracked and limit enforced on a per user basis,
> but we track it on a per-task basis as well so users can identify
> hogs of this resource, stats can be found in /proc/<pid>/limits */
>
> And I would rename bump_rlimit and task_bump_rlimit to something like
> account_rlimit and task_account_rlimit. Calling it bump just gives the
> wrong idea entirely on first read.
Right, others have also proposed better names.
-Topi
>
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> @@ -601,6 +604,9 @@ static int bpf_prog_charge_memlock(struct bpf_prog *prog)
>> return -EPERM;
>> }
>> prog->aux->user = user;
>> + /* XXX resource limits apply per task, not per user */
>> + bump_rlimit(RLIMIT_MEMLOCK, atomic_long_read(&user->locked_vm) <<
>> + PAGE_SHIFT);
>> return 0;
>> }
>
>> @@ -798,6 +802,9 @@ int user_shm_lock(size_t size, struct user_struct *user)
>> get_uid(user);
>> user->locked_shm += locked;
>> allowed = 1;
>> +
>> + /* XXX resource limits apply per task, not per user */
>> + bump_rlimit(RLIMIT_MEMLOCK, user->locked_shm << PAGE_SHIFT);
>> out:
>> spin_unlock(&shmlock_user_lock);
>> return allowed;
>> diff --git a/mm/mmap.c b/mm/mmap.c
>> index 0963e7f..4e683dd 100644
>> --- a/mm/mmap.c
>> +++ b/mm/mmap.c
>> @@ -2020,6 +2020,9 @@ static int acct_stack_growth(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long size, uns
>> return -ENOMEM;
>>
>> bump_rlimit(RLIMIT_STACK, actual_size);
>> + if (vma->vm_flags & VM_LOCKED)
>> + bump_rlimit(RLIMIT_MEMLOCK,
>> + (mm->locked_vm + grow) << PAGE_SHIFT);
>>
>> return 0;
>> }
>> diff --git a/mm/mremap.c b/mm/mremap.c
>> index 1f157ad..ade3e13 100644
>> --- a/mm/mremap.c
>> +++ b/mm/mremap.c
>> @@ -394,6 +394,9 @@ static struct vm_area_struct *vma_to_resize(unsigned long addr,
>> *p = charged;
>> }
>>
>> + if (vma->vm_flags & VM_LOCKED)
>> + bump_rlimit(RLIMIT_MEMLOCK, (mm->locked_vm << PAGE_SHIFT) +
>> + new_len - old_len);
>> return vma;
>> }
>>
>>
>
>
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>