| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <493BCF60.1080409@cosmosbay.com>
Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2008 14:28:00 +0100
From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: linux kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Mingming Cao <cmm@...ibm.com>, "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] percpu_counter: Fix __percpu_counter_sum()
Andrew Morton a écrit :
> On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 21:24:36 +0100 Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com> wrote:
>
>> Eric Dumazet a __crit :
>>
>> 1) __percpu_counter_sum() is buggy, it should not write
>> on per_cpu_ptr(fbc->counters, cpu), or another cpu
>> could get its changes lost.
>>
>> __percpu_counter_sum should be read only (const struct percpu_counter *fbc),
>> and no locking needed.
>
> No, we can't do this - it will break ext4.
>
> Take a closer look at 1f7c14c62ce63805f9574664a6c6de3633d4a354 and at
> e8ced39d5e8911c662d4d69a342b9d053eaaac4e.
>
> I suggest that what we do is to revert both those changes. We can
> worry about the possibly-unneeded spin_lock later, in a separate patch.
>
> It should have been a separate patch anyway. It's conceptually
> unrelated and is not a bugfix, but it was mixed in with a bugfix.
>
> Mingming, this needs urgent consideration, please. Note that I had to
> make additional changes to ext4 due to the subsequent introduction of
> the dirty_blocks counter.
>
>
> Please read the below changelogs carefully and check that I have got my
> head around this correctly - I may not have done.
>
Hum... e8ced39d5e8911c662d4d69a342b9d053eaaac4e is probably following
the wrong path, but I see the intent. Even in the 'nr_files' case, it could
help to reduce excessive calls to percpu_counter_sum()
What we can do is to use two s64 counters (only in SMP):
s64 reference_count
s64 shadow_count
One that is guaranteed to be touched with appropriate locking
in __percpu_counter_add()
Another one that might be changed by percpu_counter_sum(), without
any locking, acting as a shadow.
Thanks
[PATCH] percpu_counter: Fix __percpu_counter_sum()
commit e8ced39d5e8911c662d4d69a342b9d053eaaac4e (percpu_counter:
new function percpu_counter_sum_and_set) was to make __percpu_counter_sum()
being able to recompute the estimate of a percpu_counter value.
Problem is that we cannot write on other cpus counters without racing.
What we can do is to use two s64 counter, one acting as a reference
that we should not change in __percpu_counter_sum(), another one, shadowing
the reference.
percpu_counter_read() is reading the shadow
percpu_counter_sum() reads the reference and recompute the shadow.
If a given percpu_counter is never 'summed', then its shadow_counter
is always equal to its reference.
Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
---
include/linux/percpu_counter.h | 9 +++++----
lib/percpu_counter.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++----------
2 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/percpu_counter.h b/include/linux/percpu_counter.h
index 9007ccd..71b5c5d 100644
--- a/include/linux/percpu_counter.h
+++ b/include/linux/percpu_counter.h
@@ -17,7 +17,8 @@
struct percpu_counter {
spinlock_t lock;
- s64 count;
+ s64 reference_count;
+ s64 shadow_count;
#ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU
struct list_head list; /* All percpu_counters are on a list */
#endif
@@ -55,7 +56,7 @@ static inline s64 percpu_counter_sum(struct percpu_counter *fbc)
static inline s64 percpu_counter_read(struct percpu_counter *fbc)
{
- return fbc->count;
+ return fbc->shadow_count;
}
/*
@@ -65,9 +66,9 @@ static inline s64 percpu_counter_read(struct percpu_counter *fbc)
*/
static inline s64 percpu_counter_read_positive(struct percpu_counter *fbc)
{
- s64 ret = fbc->count;
+ s64 ret = percpu_counter_read(fbc);
- barrier(); /* Prevent reloads of fbc->count */
+ barrier(); /* Prevent reloads of fbc->shadow_count */
if (ret >= 0)
return ret;
return 1;
diff --git a/lib/percpu_counter.c b/lib/percpu_counter.c
index a866389..44ec857 100644
--- a/lib/percpu_counter.c
+++ b/lib/percpu_counter.c
@@ -14,6 +14,9 @@ static LIST_HEAD(percpu_counters);
static DEFINE_MUTEX(percpu_counters_lock);
#endif
+/*
+ * Note : This function is racy
+ */
void percpu_counter_set(struct percpu_counter *fbc, s64 amount)
{
int cpu;
@@ -23,7 +26,8 @@ void percpu_counter_set(struct percpu_counter *fbc, s64 amount)
s32 *pcount = per_cpu_ptr(fbc->counters, cpu);
*pcount = 0;
}
- fbc->count = amount;
+ fbc->reference_count = amount;
+ fbc->shadow_count = amount;
spin_unlock(&fbc->lock);
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(percpu_counter_set);
@@ -38,7 +42,8 @@ void __percpu_counter_add(struct percpu_counter *fbc, s64 amount, s32 batch)
count = *pcount + amount;
if (count >= batch || count <= -batch) {
spin_lock(&fbc->lock);
- fbc->count += count;
+ fbc->reference_count += count;
+ fbc->shadow_count += count;
*pcount = 0;
spin_unlock(&fbc->lock);
} else {
@@ -57,16 +62,16 @@ s64 __percpu_counter_sum(struct percpu_counter *fbc)
s64 ret;
int cpu;
- spin_lock(&fbc->lock);
- ret = fbc->count;
+ ret = fbc->reference_count;
for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
s32 *pcount = per_cpu_ptr(fbc->counters, cpu);
ret += *pcount;
- *pcount = 0;
}
- fbc->count = ret;
-
- spin_unlock(&fbc->lock);
+ /*
+ * Update fbc->shadow_count so that percpu_counter_read()
+ * can have a better idea of this counter 'value'
+ */
+ fbc->shadow_count = ret;
return ret;
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(__percpu_counter_sum);
@@ -76,7 +81,8 @@ static struct lock_class_key percpu_counter_irqsafe;
int percpu_counter_init(struct percpu_counter *fbc, s64 amount)
{
spin_lock_init(&fbc->lock);
- fbc->count = amount;
+ fbc->shadow_count = amount;
+ fbc->reference_count = amount;
fbc->counters = alloc_percpu(s32);
if (!fbc->counters)
return -ENOMEM;
@@ -132,7 +138,8 @@ static int __cpuinit percpu_counter_hotcpu_callback(struct notifier_block *nb,
spin_lock_irqsave(&fbc->lock, flags);
pcount = per_cpu_ptr(fbc->counters, cpu);
- fbc->count += *pcount;
+ fbc->reference_count += *pcount;
+ fbc->shadow_count += *pcount;
*pcount = 0;
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&fbc->lock, flags);
}
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists