lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Nov]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 4.19 56/81] kernel/sysctl.c: do not override max_threads provided by userspace
Hi!

> > > From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
> > >
> > > commit b0f53dbc4bc4c371f38b14c391095a3bb8a0bb40 upstream.
> > >
> > > Partially revert 16db3d3f1170 ("kernel/sysctl.c: threads-max observe
> > > limits") because the patch is causing a regression to any workload which
> > > needs to override the auto-tuning of the limit provided by kernel.
> > >
> > > set_max_threads is implementing a boot time guesstimate to provide a
> > > sensible limit of the concurrently running threads so that runaways will
> > > not deplete all the memory. This is a good thing in general but there
> > > are workloads which might need to increase this limit for an application
> > > to run (reportedly WebSpher MQ is affected) and that is simply not
> > > possible after the mentioned change. It is also very dubious to
> > > override an admin decision by an estimation that doesn't have any direct
> > > relation to correctness of the kernel operation.
> > >
> > > Fix this by dropping set_max_threads from sysctl_max_threads so any
> > > value is accepted as long as it fits into MAX_THREADS which is important
> > > to check because allowing more threads could break internal robust futex
> > > restriction. While at it, do not use MIN_THREADS as the lower boundary
> > > because it is also only a heuristic for automatic estimation and admin
> > > might have a good reason to stop new threads to be created even when
> > > below this limit.
> >
> > Ok, why not, but I smell followup work could be done:
> >
> > > @@ -2635,7 +2635,7 @@ int sysctl_max_threads(struct ctl_table
> > > if (ret || !write)
> > > return ret;
> > >
> > > - set_max_threads(threads);
> > > + max_threads = threads;
> > >
> >
> > AFAICT set_max_threads can now become __init.
>
> Yes. Care to send a patch?

I'm not usually hacking in that area. Could you do that?

> > Plus, I don't see any locking here, should this be WRITE_ONCE() at
> > minimum?
>
> Why would that matter? Do you expect several root processes race to set
> the value?

Well, for example to warn humans that this code is accessing unlocked
variable. Second, as is, code is not valid C and compilers are
allowed to do strange stuff ("undefined behaviour"). Third, there are
concurency checkers that will not like this one.

Best regards,
Pavel
--
DENX Software Engineering GmbH, Managing Director: Wolfgang Denk
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-11-18 16:26    [W:0.095 / U:2.480 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site