On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 9:28 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov
[off-list ref] wrote:

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 09:11:27AM +0100, Florian Westphal wrote:

quoted

Michal Hocko [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Mon 29-01-18 23:35:22, Florian Westphal wrote:

quoted

Kirill A. Shutemov [off-list ref] wrote:

[...]

quoted

quoted

I hate what I'm saying, but I guess we need some tunable here.
Not sure what exactly.

Would memcg help?

That really depends. I would have to check whether vmalloc path obeys
__GFP_ACCOUNT (I suspect it does except for page tables allocations but
that shouldn't be a big deal). But then the other potential problem is
the life time of the xt_table_info (or other potentially large) data
structures. Are they bound to any process life time.

No.

Well, IIUC they bound to net namespace life time, so killing all
proccesses in the namespace would help to get memory back. :)

... unless the namespace is mounted into file system.

Let's start with NOWARN as that's what kernel generally uses for
allocations with user-controllable size. ENOMEM is roughly as
informative as the WARNING message in this case.

I think we also need to consider setting up memory cgroup for
syzkaller test processes (we do RLIMIT_AS, but that's weak).

--
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>