On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 09:04:44AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 20-06-19 13:16:20, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 03:24:50PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Mon 10-06-19 20:12:51, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > +static int madvise_pageout_pte_range(pmd_t *pmd, unsigned long addr,
> > > > + unsigned long end, struct mm_walk *walk)
> > >
> > > Again the same question about a potential code reuse...
> > > [...]
> > > > +regular_page:
> > > > + tlb_change_page_size(tlb, PAGE_SIZE);
> > > > + orig_pte = pte = pte_offset_map_lock(vma->vm_mm, pmd, addr, &ptl);
> > > > + flush_tlb_batched_pending(mm);
> > > > + arch_enter_lazy_mmu_mode();
> > > > + for (; addr < end; pte++, addr += PAGE_SIZE) {
> > > > + ptent = *pte;
> > > > + if (!pte_present(ptent))
> > > > + continue;
> > > > +
> > > > + page = vm_normal_page(vma, addr, ptent);
> > > > + if (!page)
> > > > + continue;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (isolate_lru_page(page))
> > > > + continue;
> > > > +
> > > > + isolated++;
> > > > + if (pte_young(ptent)) {
> > > > + ptent = ptep_get_and_clear_full(mm, addr, pte,
> > > > + tlb->fullmm);
> > > > + ptent = pte_mkold(ptent);
> > > > + set_pte_at(mm, addr, pte, ptent);
> > > > + tlb_remove_tlb_entry(tlb, pte, addr);
> > > > + }
> > > > + ClearPageReferenced(page);
> > > > + test_and_clear_page_young(page);
> > > > + list_add(&page->lru, &page_list);
> > > > + if (isolated >= SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX) {
> > >
> > > Why do we need SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX batching? Especially when we need ...
> > > [...]
> >
> > It aims for preventing early OOM kill since we isolate too many LRU
> > pages concurrently.
>
> This is a good point. For some reason I thought that we consider
> isolated pages in should_reclaim_retry but we do not anymore (since we
> move from zone to node LRUs I guess). Please stick a comment there.
Sure.
>
> > > > +unsigned long reclaim_pages(struct list_head *page_list)
> > > > +{
> > > > + int nid = -1;
> > > > + unsigned long nr_reclaimed = 0;
> > > > + LIST_HEAD(node_page_list);
> > > > + struct reclaim_stat dummy_stat;
> > > > + struct scan_control sc = {
> > > > + .gfp_mask = GFP_KERNEL,
> > > > + .priority = DEF_PRIORITY,
> > > > + .may_writepage = 1,
> > > > + .may_unmap = 1,
> > > > + .may_swap = 1,
> > > > + };
> > > > +
> > > > + while (!list_empty(page_list)) {
> > > > + struct page *page;
> > > > +
> > > > + page = lru_to_page(page_list);
> > > > + if (nid == -1) {
> > > > + nid = page_to_nid(page);
> > > > + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&node_page_list);
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + if (nid == page_to_nid(page)) {
> > > > + list_move(&page->lru, &node_page_list);
> > > > + continue;
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + nr_reclaimed += shrink_page_list(&node_page_list,
> > > > + NODE_DATA(nid),
> > > > + &sc, 0,
> > > > + &dummy_stat, false);
> > >
> > > per-node batching in fact. Other than that nothing really jumped at me.
> > > Except for the shared page cache side channel timing aspect not being
> > > considered AFAICS. To be more specific. Pushing out a shared page cache
> > > is possible even now but this interface gives a much easier tool to
> > > evict shared state and perform all sorts of timing attacks. Unless I am
> > > missing something we should be doing something similar to mincore and
> > > ignore shared pages without a writeable access or at least document why
> > > we do not care.
> >
> > I'm not sure IIUC side channel attach. As you mentioned, without this syscall,
> > 1. they already can do that simply by memory hogging
>
> This is way much more harder for practical attacks because the reclaim
> logic is not fully under the attackers control. Having a direct tool to
> reclaim memory directly then just opens doors to measure the other
> consumers of that memory and all sorts of side channel.
Not sure it's much more harder. It's really easy on my experience.
Just creating new memory hogger and consume memory step by step until
you newly allocated pages will be reclaimed.
Anyway, we fixed mincore so attacker cannot see when the page fault-in
if he don't enough permission for the file. Right?
What's the concern of you even though we reclaim more aggressively?
>
> > 2. If we need fix MADV_PAGEOUT, that means we need to fix MADV_DONTNEED, too?
>
> nope because MADV_DONTNEED doesn't unmap from other processes.
Hmm, I don't understand. MADV_PAGEOUT doesn't unmap from other
processes, either. Could you elborate it a bit more what's your concern?
> --
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs
