On Thu, Aug 02, 2018 at 10:50:43AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Wed 01-08-18 19:03:03, Georgi Nikolov wrote: > > > > *Georgi Nikolov* > > System Administrator > > www.icdsoft.com <http://www.icdsoft.com> > > > > On 08/01/2018 11:33 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > On Wed 01-08-18 09:34:23, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > > >> On 07/31/2018 04:05 PM, Florian Westphal wrote: > > >>> Georgi Nikolov <gnikolov@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >>>>> No, I think that's rather for the netfilter folks to decide. However, it > > >>>>> seems there has been the debate already [1] and it was not found. The > > >>>>> conclusion was that __GFP_NORETRY worked fine before, so it should work > > >>>>> again after it's added back. But now we know that it doesn't... > > >>>>> > > >>>>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20180130140104.GE21609@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/T/#u > > >>>> Yes i see. I will add Florian Westphal to CC list. netfilter-devel is > > >>>> already in this list so probably have to wait for their opinion. > > >>> It hasn't changed, I think having OOM killer zap random processes > > >>> just because userspace wants to import large iptables ruleset is not a > > >>> good idea. > > >> If we denied the allocation instead of OOM (e.g. by using > > >> __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL), a slightly smaller one may succeed, still leaving > > >> the system without much memory, so it will invoke OOM killer sooner or > > >> later anyway. > > >> > > >> I don't see any silver-bullet solution, unfortunately. If this can be > > >> abused by (multiple) namespaces, then they have to be contained by > > >> kmemcg as that's the generic mechanism intended for this. Then we could > > >> use the __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL. > > >> The only limit we could impose to outright deny the allocation (to > > >> prevent obvious bugs/admin mistakes or abuses) could be based on the > > >> amount of RAM, as was suggested in the old thread. > > > > Can we make this configurable - on/off switch or size above which > > to pass GFP_NORETRY. > > Yet another tunable? How do you decide which one to select? Seriously, > configuration knobs sound attractive but they are rarely a good idea. > Either we trust privileged users or we don't and we have kmem accounting > for that. > > > Probably hard coded based on amount of RAM is a good idea too. > > How do you scale that? > > In other words, why don't we simply do the following? Note that this is > not tested. I have also no idea what is the lifetime of this allocation. > Is it bound to any specific process or is it a namespace bound? If the > later then the memcg OOM killer might wipe the whole memcg down without > making any progress. This would make the whole namespace unsuable until > somebody intervenes. Is this acceptable? > --- > From 4dec96eb64954a7e58264ed551afadf62ca4c5f7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx> > Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2018 10:38:57 +0200 > Subject: [PATCH] netfilter/x_tables: do not fail xt_alloc_table_info too > easilly > > eacd86ca3b03 ("net/netfilter/x_tables.c: use kvmalloc() > in xt_alloc_table_info()") has unintentionally fortified > xt_alloc_table_info allocation when __GFP_RETRY has been dropped from > the vmalloc fallback. Later on there was a syzbot report that this > can lead to OOM killer invocations when tables are too large and > 0537250fdc6c ("netfilter: x_tables: make allocation less aggressive") > has been merged to restore the original behavior. Georgi Nikolov however > noticed that he is not able to install his iptables anymore so this can > be seen as a regression. > > The primary argument for 0537250fdc6c was that this allocation path > shouldn't really trigger the OOM killer and kill innocent tasks. On the > other hand the interface requires root and as such should allow what the > admin asks for. Root inside a namespaces makes this more complicated > because those might be not trusted in general. If they are not then such > namespaces should be restricted anyway. Therefore drop the __GFP_NORETRY > and replace it by __GFP_ACCOUNT to enfore memcg constrains on it. > > Fixes: 0537250fdc6c ("netfilter: x_tables: make allocation less aggressive") > Reported-by: Georgi Nikolov <gnikolov@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Suggested-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx> > --- > net/netfilter/x_tables.c | 7 +------ > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/net/netfilter/x_tables.c b/net/netfilter/x_tables.c > index d0d8397c9588..b769408e04ab 100644 > --- a/net/netfilter/x_tables.c > +++ b/net/netfilter/x_tables.c > @@ -1178,12 +1178,7 @@ struct xt_table_info *xt_alloc_table_info(unsigned int size) > if (sz < sizeof(*info) || sz >= XT_MAX_TABLE_SIZE) > return NULL; > > - /* __GFP_NORETRY is not fully supported by kvmalloc but it should > - * work reasonably well if sz is too large and bail out rather > - * than shoot all processes down before realizing there is nothing > - * more to reclaim. > - */ > - info = kvmalloc(sz, GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_NORETRY); > + info = kvmalloc(sz, GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_ACCOUNT); I guess the large number of cgroups match is helping to consume a lot of memory very quickly? We have a PATH_MAX in struct xt_cgroup_info_v1. Can we just trim off the path to something more reasonable? We did similar things to other extensions. Only concern here is what is a reasonable path length to describe the cgroup. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
