lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Nov]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    Patch in this message
    /
    From
    SubjectRE: Users locking memory using futexes
    Date

    > > This raises a good point - I guess we should be doing something like
    > > checking user limits (against locked memory, 'ulimit -l').

    > If futexes are limited by user limits, that's going to mean some
    > threading program gets a surprise when too many threads decide to
    > block on a resource. That's really nasty. (Of course, a program can
    > get a surprise due to just running out of memory in sys_futex() too,
    > but that's much rarer).

    Sure, as I mentioned in my email, that'd be _a_ way to do it, but I am not
    convinced at all it is the best -- of course, I don't know what could be the
    best way to do it; maybe a capability? a per-process tunable in /proc?
    another rlimit and we break POSIX? [do we?]

    Good thing is - I just found out after reading twice - that FUTEX_FD does
    not lock the page in memory, so that is one case less to worry about.

    In this context I was wondering it it really makes sense to worry about too
    many threads of a DoS process blocking on futex_wait() to lock memory out.
    At least, as an excercise ...

    > It would be nice if the futex waitqueues could be re-hashed against
    > swap entries when pages are swapped out, somehow, but this
    > sounds hard.

    I am starting to think it could be done with no effort -- just off my
    little-knoledgeable-head -- let's say it can be done:

    In futex_wait(), we lock the page, store it and the offset [and whatever
    else] as now, and then releasing just after queueing in the hash table; this
    way the page can go wild to swap.

    Some other process has locked it, then goes on to do something else and the
    page ends up in swap. Whenever we call _wake() - or tell_waiters(), we need
    to make sure the page is in RAM - if not, we can page it in (__pin_page()
    does it already) and lock it, do the thing, unlock it.

    So, this would mean this patch should suffice:
    --- futex.c 12 Nov 2002 05:38:55 -0000 1.1.1.3.8.1
    +++ futex.c 12 Nov 2002 05:50:35 -0000
    @@ -281,10 +277,12 @@
    /* Page is pinned, but may no longer be in this address space. */
    if (get_user(curval, (int *)uaddr) != 0) {
    ret = -EFAULT;
    + unpin_page(page);
    goto out;
    }
    if (curval != val) {
    ret = -EWOULDBLOCK;
    + unpin_page(page);
    goto out;
    }
    /*
    @@ -295,6 +293,7 @@
    * the waiter from the list.
    */
    add_wait_queue(&q.waiters, &wait);
    + unpin_page(page);
    set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
    if (!list_empty(&q.list))
    time = schedule_timeout(time);
    @@ -313,7 +312,6 @@
    /* Were we woken up anyway? */
    if (!unqueue_me(&q))
    ret = 0;
    - unpin_page(page);

    return ret;
    }
    Rusty, Ingo: am I missing something big in here? I am kind of green in the
    interactions between the address spaces.

    Inaky Perez-Gonzalez -- Not speaking for Intel - opinions are my own [or my
    fault]

    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:30    [W:4.044 / U:0.616 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site