linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] ipc, mqueue: lazy call kern_mount

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 30 Nov 2017 13:20:11 +0100
From:   Giuseppe Scrivano <gscrivan@...hat.com>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        mingo@...nel.org, dave@...olabs.net
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] ipc, mqueue: lazy call kern_mount_data in new namespaces

Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> writes:

> On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 11:33:28 +0100 Giuseppe Scrivano <gscrivan@...hat.com> wrote:
>
>> Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> writes:
>> 
>> > OK, but this simply moves the expense so it happens later on.  Why is
>> > that better?
>> 
>> the optimization is for new IPC namespaces that don't use mq_open.  In
>> this case there won't be any kern_mount_data cost at all.
>> 
>
> Fair enough.  Please add this paragraph (or similar) to the changelog:
>
> : This is a net saving for new IPC namespaces that don't use mq_open().  In
> : this case there won't be any kern_mount_data() cost at all
>
> And..  the patch calls
> kern_mount_data()->vfs_kern_mount()->...->kmem_cache_zalloc(GFP_KERNEL)
> under spin_lock().  This should have created a might_sleep() warning in
> your testing, but obviously did not.
>
> Could you please find out why?  Do you have
> CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP=n, I hope?  Please peruse
> Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst, section 12...
>
> I assume a suitable fix would be to create a new mutex (static to
> do_mq_open()) to prevent concurrent mounting.

thanks for the hints.

Indeed, that was a mistake on my side as I didn't use
CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP=y.  The might_sleep() warning is correctly 
raised once I enable CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP (and the other options
suggested in submit-checklist.rst).

Giuseppe