From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Glauber Costa Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 13/14] protect architectures where THREAD_SIZE >= PAGE_SIZE against fork bombs Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 13:37:39 +0400 Message-ID: <507FCDE3.1050408@parallels.com> References: <1350382611-20579-1-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <1350382611-20579-14-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <20121017151245.f11c4d18.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20121017151245.f11c4d18.akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org> Sender: cgroups-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Andrew Morton Cc: linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org, cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Mel Gorman , Tejun Heo , Michal Hocko , Johannes Weiner , kamezawa.hiroyu-+CUm20s59erQFUHtdCDX3A@public.gmane.org, Christoph Lameter , David Rientjes , Pekka Enberg , devel-GEFAQzZX7r8dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Pekka Enberg , Suleiman Souhlal On 10/18/2012 02:12 AM, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 14:16:50 +0400 > Glauber Costa wrote: > >> @@ -146,7 +146,7 @@ void __weak arch_release_thread_info(struct thread_info *ti) >> static struct thread_info *alloc_thread_info_node(struct task_struct *tsk, >> int node) >> { >> - struct page *page = alloc_pages_node(node, THREADINFO_GFP, >> + struct page *page = alloc_pages_node(node, THREADINFO_GFP_ACCOUNTED, >> THREAD_SIZE_ORDER); > > yay, we actually used all this code for something ;) > Happy to be of use, sir! > I don't think we really saw a comprehensive list of what else the kmem > controller will be used for, but I believe that all other envisaged > applications will require slab accounting, yes? > > > So it appears that all we have at present is a > yet-another-fork-bomb-preventer, but one which requires that the > culprit be in a container? That's reasonable, given your > hosted-environment scenario. It's unclear (to me) that we should merge > all this code for only this feature. Again, it would be good to have a > clear listing of and plan for other applications of this code. > I agree. This doesn't buy me much without slab accounting. But reiterating what I've just said in another e-mail, slab accounting is not really in plan stage, but had also been through extensive development. As a matter of fact, it used to be only "slab accounting" in the beginning, without this. I've split it more recently because I believe it would allow people to do a more focused review, leading to better code.