Re: [PATCH 3/3] zram: add mem_used_max via sysfs

[Dan Streetman <ddstreet@ieee.org>]

On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 12:23 PM, David Horner <ds2horner@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 11:32 AM, David Horner <ds2horner@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 11:09 AM, Dan Streetman <ddstreet@ieee.org> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 9:12 PM, Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org> wrote:
>>>> -       if (zram->limit_bytes &&
>>>> -               zs_get_total_size_bytes(meta->mem_pool) > zram->limit_bytes) {
>>>> +       total_bytes = zs_get_total_size_bytes(meta->mem_pool);
>>>> +       if (zram->limit_bytes && total_bytes > zram->limit_bytes) {
>>>
>>> do you need to take the init_lock to read limit_bytes here?  It could
>>> be getting changed between these checks...
>>
>> There is no real danger in freeing with an error.
>> It is more timing than a race.
> I probably should explain my reasoning.
>
> any changes between getting the total value and the limit test are not
> problematic (From race perspective).
>
> 1) If the actual total increases and the value returned under rates it, then
> a) if this.total exceeds the limit - no problem it is rolled back as
> it would if the actual total were used.
> b) if this.total <= limit OK - as other process will be dinged (it
> will see its own allocation)
>
> 2)  If the actual total decreases and the value returned overrates
> rates it, then
> a) if this.value <= limit then allocation great (actual has even more room)
> b) if this.value > max it will be rolled back (as the other might be
> as well) and process can compete again.

actually I wasn't thinking of total_bytes changing, i think it's ok to
check the total at that specific point in time, for the reasons you
point out above.

I was thinking about zram->limit_bytes changing, especially if it's
possible to disable the limit (i.e. set it to 0), e.g.:

assume currently total_bytes == 1G and limit_bytes == 2G, so there is
not currently any danger of going over the limit.  Then:


thread 1 : if (zram->limit_bytes  ...this is true

thread 2 : zram->limit_bytes = limit;    ...where limit == 0

thread 1 : && total_bytes > zram->limit_bytes) {   ...this is now also true

thread 1 : incorrectly return -ENOMEM failure

It's very unlikely, and a single failure isn't a big deal here since
the caller must be prepared to handle a failure.  And of course the
compiler might reorder those checks.  And if it's not possible to
disable the limit by setting it to 0 (besides a complete reset of the
zram device, which wouldn't happen while this function is running),
then there's not an issue here (although, I think being able to
disable the limit without having to reset the zram device is useful).


Also for setting the max_used_bytes, isn't non-atomically setting a
u64 value dangerous (on <64 bit systems) when it's not synchronized
between threads?

That is, unless the entire zram_bvec_write() function or this section
is already thread-safe, and i missed it (which i may have :-)


>
> Is there a denial of service possible if 2.b repeats indefinitely.
> Yes, but how to set it up reliably? And it is no different than a
> single user exhausting the limit before any other users.
> Yes, it is potentially a live false limit exhaustion, with one process
> requesting an amount exceeding the limit but able to be allocated.
>  But this is no worse than the rollback load we already have at the limit.
>
> It would be better to check before the zs_malloc if the concern is
> avoiding heavy processing in that function (as an optimization),  as
> well as here.after allocation
>
> But I see no real race or danger doing this unlocked.

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>