You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
(This is a cherry-pick of b999376.)
While the ro-bind-mount trick did eliminate the memory overhead of
copying the runc binary for each "runc init" invocation, on machines
with very significant container churn, creating a temporary mount
namespace on every container invocation can trigger severe lock
contention on namespace_sem that makes containers fail to spawn.
The only reason we added bindfd in commit 16612d7 ("nsenter:
cloned_binary: try to ro-bind /proc/self/exe before copying") was due to
a Kubernetes e2e test failure where they had a ridiculously small memory
limit. It seems incredibly unlikely that real workloads are running
without 10MB to spare for the very short time that runc is interacting
with the container.
In addition, since the original cloned_binary implementation, cgroupv2
is now almost universally used on modern systems. Unlike cgroupv1, the
cgroupv2 memcg implementation does not migrate memory usage when
processes change cgroups (even cgroupv1 only did this if you had
memory.move_charge_at_immigrate enabled). In addition, because we do the
/proc/self/exe clone before synchronising the bootstrap data read, we
are guaranteed to do the clone before "runc init" is moved into the
container cgroup -- meaning that the memory used by the /proc/self/exe
clone is charged against the root cgroup, and thus container workloads
should not be affected at all with memfd cloning.
The long-term fix for this problem is to block the /proc/self/exe
re-opening attack entirely in-kernel, which is something I'm working
on[1]. Though it should also be noted that because the memfd is
completely separate to the host binary, even attacks like Dirty COW
against the runc binary can be defended against with the memfd approach.
Of course, once we have in-kernel protection against the /proc/self/exe
re-opening attack, we won't have that protection anymore...
[1]: https://lwn.net/Articles/934460/
Signed-off-by: Aleksa Sarai <[email protected]>
0 commit comments