linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC] time: drop do_sys

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 13 Aug 2014 14:25:53 -0400
From:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@...fujitsu.com>,
	Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@...gle.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Sanjay Rao <srao@...hat.com>,
	Larry Woodman <lwoodman@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] time: drop do_sys_times spinlock

On 08/13/2014 02:08 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 08/13, Rik van Riel wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 19:22:30 +0200
>> Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 08/12, Rik van Riel wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Any other ideas?
>>>
>>> To simplify, lets suppose that we only need sum_exec_runtime.
>>>
>>> Perhaps we can do something like this
>>
>> That would probably work, indeed.
> 
> OK, perhaps I'll try to make a patch tomorrow for review.
> 
>> However, it turns out that a seqcount doesn't look too badly either.
> 
> Well, I disagree. This is more complex, and this adds yet another lock
> which only protects the stats...

The other lock is what can tell us that there is a writer active
NOW, which may be useful when it comes to guaranteeing forward
progress for readers when there are lots of threads exiting...

>> --- a/include/linux/sched.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/sched.h
>> @@ -461,6 +461,7 @@ struct sighand_struct {
>>  	atomic_t		count;
>>  	struct k_sigaction	action[_NSIG];
>>  	spinlock_t		siglock;
>> +	seqcount_t		stats_seq; /* write nests inside spinlock */
> 
> No, no, at least it should go to signal_struct. Unlike ->sighand, ->signal
> is stable as long as task_struct can't go away.

I can move it to signal_struct, no problem.

>>  void thread_group_cputime(struct task_struct *tsk, struct task_cputime *times)
>>  {
>>  	struct signal_struct *sig = tsk->signal;
>> +	struct sighand_struct *sighand;
>>  	cputime_t utime, stime;
>>  	struct task_struct *t;
>> -
>> -	times->utime = sig->utime;
>> -	times->stime = sig->stime;
>> -	times->sum_exec_runtime = sig->sum_sched_runtime;
>> +	int seq;
>>  
>>  	rcu_read_lock();
>> -	/* make sure we can trust tsk->thread_group list */
>> -	if (!likely(pid_alive(tsk)))
>> +	sighand = rcu_dereference(tsk->sighand);
>> +	if (unlikely(!sighand))
>>  		goto out;
>>  
>> -	t = tsk;
>>  	do {
>> -		task_cputime(t, &utime, &stime);
>> -		times->utime += utime;
>> -		times->stime += stime;
>> -		times->sum_exec_runtime += task_sched_runtime(t);
>> -	} while_each_thread(tsk, t);
>> +		seq = read_seqcount_begin(&sighand->stats_seq);
>> +		times->utime = sig->utime;
>> +		times->stime = sig->stime;
>> +		times->sum_exec_runtime = sig->sum_sched_runtime;
>> +
>> +		/* make sure we can trust tsk->thread_group list */
>> +		if (!likely(pid_alive(tsk)))
>> +			goto out;
> 
> Whatever we do, we should convert thread_group_cputime() to use
> for_each_thread() first().

What is the advantage of for_each_thread over while_each_thread,
besides getting rid of that t = tsk line?

>> @@ -781,14 +781,14 @@ static void posix_cpu_timer_get(struct k_itimer *timer, struct itimerspec *itp)
>>  		cpu_clock_sample(timer->it_clock, p, &now);
>>  	} else {
>>  		struct sighand_struct *sighand;
>> -		unsigned long flags;
>>
>>  		/*
>>  		 * Protect against sighand release/switch in exit/exec and
>>  		 * also make timer sampling safe if it ends up calling
>>  		 * thread_group_cputime().
>>  		 */
>> -		sighand = lock_task_sighand(p, &flags);
>> +		rcu_read_lock();
>> +		sighand = rcu_dereference(p->sighand);
> 
> This looks unneeded at first glance.

You are right. This change should be made to posix_cpu_clock_get_task
and not posix_cpu_timer_get. I think this is where I got distracted
by the way the sighand struct was RCU freed.

Sigh...

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