Re: [PATCH mm v3 0/9] memcg: accounting for objects allocated by mkdir cgroup

[Michal Hocko]

On Wed 01-06-22 07:22:05, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 01, 2022 at 03:05:34PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 01-06-22 11:32:26, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Wed 01-06-22 11:15:43, Michal Koutny wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jun 01, 2022 at 06:43:27AM +0300, Vasily Averin <vvs@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > CT-901 /# cat /sys/fs/cgroup/memory/cgroup.subgroups_limit 
> > > > > 512
> > > > > CT-901 /# echo 3333 > /sys/fs/cgroup/memory/cgroup.subgroups_limit 
> > > > > -bash: echo: write error: Operation not permitted
> > > > > CT-901 /# echo 333 > /sys/fs/cgroup/memory/cgroup.subgroups_limit 
> > > > > -bash: echo: write error: Operation not permitted
> > > > > 
> > > > > I doubt this way can be accepted in upstream, however for OpenVz
> > > > > something like this it is mandatory because it much better
> > > > > than nothing.
> > > > 
> > > > Is this customization of yours something like cgroup.max.descendants on
> > > > the unified (v2) hierarchy? (Just curious.)
> > > > 
> > > > (It can be made inaccessible from within the subtree either with cgroup
> > > > ns or good old FS permissions.)
> > > 
> > > So we already do have a limit to prevent somebody from running away with
> > > the number of cgroups. Nice!
> 
> Yes, we do!
> 
> > > I was not aware of that and I guess this
> > > looks like the right thing to do. So do we need more control and
> > > accounting that this?
> > 
> > I have checked the actual implementation and noticed that cgroups are
> > uncharged when offlined (rmdir-ed) which means that an adversary could
> > still trick the limit and runaway while still consuming resources.
> > 
> > Roman, I guess the reason for this implementation was to avoid limit to
> > trigger on setups with memcgs which can take quite some time to die?
> > Would it make sense to make the implementation more strict to really act
> > as gate against potential cgroups count runways?
> 
> The reasoning was that in many cases a user can't do much about dying cgroups,
> so it's not clear how they should/would handle getting -EAGAIN on creating a
> new cgroup (retrying will not help, obviously). Live cgroups can be easily
> deleted, dying cgroups - not always.
> 
> I'm not sure about switching the semantics. I'd wait till Muchun's lru page
> reparenting will be landed (could be within 1-2 releases, I guess) and then we
> can check whether the whole problem is mostly gone. Honestly, I think we might
> need to fix few another things, but it might be not that hard (in comparison
> to what we already did).

OK, thanks for the confirmation! Say we end up mitigating the
too-easy-to-linger memcgs long standing issue. Do we still need an
extended cgroup data structure accounting?

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs