linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] task_work: remove fifo ordering guarantee

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:	Sat, 29 Aug 2015 06:57:30 -0700
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Maciej Żenczykowski <maze@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] task_work: remove fifo ordering guarantee

On Sat, 2015-08-29 at 14:49 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 08/28, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> >
> > From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
> >
> > In commit f341861fb0b ("task_work: add a scheduling point in
> > task_work_run()") I fixed a latency problem adding a cond_resched()
> > call.
> >
> > Later, commit ac3d0da8f329 added yet another loop to reverse a list,
> > bringing back the latency spike :
> >
> > I've seen in some cases this loop taking 275 ms, if for example a
> > process with 2,000,000 files is killed.
> >
> > We could add yet another cond_resched() in the reverse loop,
> 
> Can't we do this?

Well, I stated in the changelog we could. Obviously we can.

Adding 275 ms of pure overhead to perform this list reversal for files
to be closed is quite unfortunate.

> Personally I'd prefer to keep the fifo ordering. It just makes
> more sense imho. Even if currently nobody depends on it (although
> I am not sure about out-of-tree modules, say, systemtap).
> 
> Let's look keyctl_session_to_parent(). It does task_work_cancel()
> but only because we can not trust user-space. Otherwise we could
> remove it and just do task_work_add(), but this needs fifo.

So it looks like there is no problem today, right, other than the
possibility to parse a long list while blocking IRQ ?

> 
> Fifo just looks more sane to me.

Well, files are closed in a random order. These are the main user of
this stuff.

If this is that critical, maybe use 2 lists, one for stuff needing fifo,
and another one for un-ordered stuff (ed : file closing), and add a
boolean to task_work_add()/task_work_cancel(). This adds yet another
field into struct task_struct.

Now we also could question why we needed commit
4a9d4b024a3102fc083c925c242d98ac27b1c5f6 ("switch fput to task_work_add
") since it seems quite an overhead at task exit with 10^6 of files to
close.

I understood the 'schedule_work() for interrupt/kernel_thread callers'
part, but not the task_work_add() one.

--
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/