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

Haitao Huang
2023-10-10T01:06:37Z

On Mon, 09 Oct 2023 18:45:06 -0500, Huang, Kai <kai.huang@intel.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 2023-09-22 at 20:06 -0700, Haitao Huang wrote:
>> From: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
>>
>> Introduce the OOM path for killing an enclave with a reclaimer that is
>> no
>> longer able to reclaim enough EPC pages. Find a victim enclave, which
>> will be an enclave with only "unreclaimable" EPC pages left in the
>> cgroup LRU lists. Once a victim is identified, mark the enclave as OOM
>> and zap the enclave's entire page range, and drain all mm references in
>> encl->mm_list. Block allocating any EPC pages in #PF handler, or
>> reloading any pages in all paths, or creating any new mappings.
>>
>> The OOM killing path may race with the reclaimers: in some cases, the
>> victim enclave is in the process of reclaiming the last EPC pages when
>> OOM happens, that is, all pages other than SECS and VA pages are in
>> RECLAIMING_IN_PROGRESS state. The reclaiming process requires access to
>> the enclave backing, VA pages as well as SECS. So the OOM killer does
>> not directly release those enclave resources, instead, it lets all
>> reclaiming in progress to finish, and relies (as currently done) on
>> kref_put on encl->refcount to trigger sgx_encl_release() to do the
>> final cleanup.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
>> Co-developed-by: Kristen Carlson Accardi <kristen@linux.intel.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Kristen Carlson Accardi <kristen@linux.intel.com>
>> Co-developed-by: Haitao Huang <haitao.huang@linux.intel.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Haitao Huang <haitao.huang@linux.intel.com>
>> Cc: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
>> ---
>> V5:
>> - Rename SGX_ENCL_OOM to SGX_ENCL_NO_MEMORY
>>
>> V4:
>> - Updates for patch reordering and typo fixes.
>>
>> V3:
>> - Rebased to use the new VMA_ITERATOR to zap VMAs.
>> - Fixed the racing cases by blocking new page allocation/mapping and
>> reloading when enclave is marked for OOM. And do not release any enclave
>> resources other than draining mm_list entries, and let pages in
>> RECLAIMING_IN_PROGRESS to be reaped by reclaimers.
>> - Due to above changes, also removed the no-longer needed encl->lock in
>> the OOM path which was causing deadlocks reported by the lock prover.
>>
>
> [...]
>
>> +
>> +/**
>> + * sgx_epc_oom() - invoke EPC out-of-memory handling on target LRU
>> + * @lru: LRU that is low
>> + *
>> + * Return: %true if a victim was found and kicked.
>> + */
>> +bool sgx_epc_oom(struct sgx_epc_lru_lists *lru)
>> +{
>> + struct sgx_epc_page *victim;
>> +
>> + spin_lock(&lru->lock);
>> + victim = sgx_oom_get_victim(lru);
>> + spin_unlock(&lru->lock);
>> +
>> + if (!victim)
>> + return false;
>> +
>> + if (victim->flags & SGX_EPC_OWNER_PAGE)
>> + return sgx_oom_encl_page(victim->encl_page);
>> +
>> + if (victim->flags & SGX_EPC_OWNER_ENCL)
>> + return sgx_oom_encl(victim->encl);
>
> I hate to bring this up, at least at this stage, but I am wondering why
> we need
> to put VA and SECS pages to the unreclaimable list, but cannot keep an
> "enclave_list" instead?
>
> So by looking the patch (" x86/sgx: Limit process EPC usage with misc
> cgroup
> controller"), if I am not missing anything, the whole "unreclaimable"
> list is
> just used to find the victim enclave when OOM needs to be done. Thus, I
> don't
> see why "enclave_list" cannot be used to achieve this.
>
> The reason that I am asking is because it seems using "enclave_list" we
> can
> simplify the code. At least the patches related to track VA/SECS pages,
> and the
> SGX_EPC_OWNER_PAGE/SGX_EPC_OWNER_ENCL thing can be eliminated
> completely.
> Using "enclave_list", I guess you just need to put the enclave to the
> current
> EPC cgroup when SECS page is allocated.
>
Later the hosting process could migrated/reassigned to another cgroup?
What to do when the new cgroup is OOM?

Thanks
Haitao