Re: [PATCH v5 12/18] x86/sgx: Add EPC OOM path to forcefully reclaim EPC

Haitao Huang
2023-10-11T16:04:59Z

On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 19:31:19 -0500, Huang, Kai <kai.huang@intel.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 2023-10-10 at 12:05 -0500, Haitao Huang wrote:
>> On Mon, 09 Oct 2023 21:12:27 -0500, Huang, Kai <kai.huang@intel.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > Later the hosting process could migrated/reassigned to another
>> > > cgroup?
>> > > > > What to do when the new cgroup is OOM?
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > You addressed in the documentation, no?
>> > > >
>> > > > +Migration
>> > > > +---------
>> > > > +
>> > > > +Once an EPC page is charged to a cgroup (during allocation), it
>> > > > +remains charged to the original cgroup until the page is released
>> > > > +or reclaimed. Migrating a process to a different cgroup doesn't
>> > > > +move the EPC charges that it incurred while in the previous
>> cgroup
>> > > > +to its new cgroup.
>> > >
>> > > Should we kill the enclave though because some VA pages may be in
>> the
>> > > new
>> > > group?
>> > >
>> >
>> > I guess acceptable?
>> >
>> > And any difference if you keep VA/SECS to unreclaimabe list?
>>
>> Tracking VA/SECS allows all cgroups, in which an enclave has allocation,
>> to identify the enclave following the back pointer and kill it as
>> needed.
>>
>> > If you migrate one
>> > enclave to another cgroup, the old EPC pages stay in the old cgroup
>> > while the
>> > new one is charged to the new group IIUC.
>> >
>> > I am not cgroup expert, but by searching some old thread it appears
>> this
>> > isn't a
>> > supported model:
>> >
>> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/YEyR9181Qgzt+Ps9@mtj.duckdns.org/
>> >
>>
>> IIUC it's a different problem here. If we don't track the allocated VAs
>> in
>> the new group, then the enclave that spans the two groups can't be
>> killed
>> by the new group. If so, some enclave could just hide in some small
>> group
>> and never gets killed but keeps allocating in a different group?
>>
>
> I mean from the link above IIUC migrating enclave among different
> cgroups simply
> isn't a supported model, thus any bad behaviour isn't a big concern in
> terms of
> decision making.

If we leave some pages in a cgroup unkillable, we are in the same
situation of not able to enforce a cgroup limit as that we are are in if
we don't kill VMs for lower limits.

I think not supporting migration of pages between cgroups should not leave
a gap for enforcement just like we don't want to have an enforcement gap
if we let VMs to hold pages once it is launched.

Haitao