linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 17/21] Percpu tag allocator

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Wed, 15 May 2013 02:25:43 -0700
From:	Kent Overstreet <koverstreet@...gle.com>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-aio@...ck.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 17/21] Percpu tag allocator

On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 03:48:59PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 05/13, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> >
> > +unsigned tag_alloc(struct tag_pool *pool, bool wait)
> > +{
> > +	struct tag_cpu_freelist *tags;
> > +	unsigned long flags;
> > +	unsigned ret;
> > +retry:
> > +	preempt_disable();
> > +	local_irq_save(flags);
> > +	tags = this_cpu_ptr(pool->tag_cpu);
> > +
> > +	while (!tags->nr_free) {
> > +		spin_lock(&pool->lock);
> > +
> > +		if (pool->nr_free)
> > +			move_tags(tags->free, &tags->nr_free,
> > +				  pool->free, &pool->nr_free,
> > +				  min(pool->nr_free, pool->watermark));
> > +		else if (wait) {
> > +			struct tag_waiter wait = { .task = current };
> > +
> > +			__set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> > +			list_add(&wait.list, &pool->wait);
> > +
> > +			spin_unlock(&pool->lock);
> > +			local_irq_restore(flags);
> > +			preempt_enable();
> > +
> > +			schedule();
> > +			__set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
> 
> schedule() always returns in TASK_RUNNING state
> 
> > +
> > +			if (!list_empty_careful(&wait.list)) {
> > +				spin_lock_irqsave(&pool->lock, flags);
> > +				list_del_init(&wait.list);
> > +				spin_unlock_irqrestore(&pool->lock, flags);
> 
> This is only theoretical, but racy.
> 
> tag_free() does
> 
> 	list_del_init(wait->list);
> 	/* WINDOW */
> 	wake_up_process(wait->task);
> 	
> in theory the caller of tag_alloc() can notice list_empty_careful(),
> return without taking pool->lock, exit, and free this task_struct.
> 
> But the main problem is that it is not clear why this code reimplements
> add_wait_queue/wake_up_all, for what?

To save on locking... there's really no point in another lock for the
wait queue. Could just use the wait queue lock instead I suppose, like
wait_event_interruptible_locked()

(the extra spin_lock()/unlock() might not really cost anything but
nested irqsave()/restore() is ridiculously expensive, IME).

> I must admit, I do not understand what this code actually does ;)
> I didn't try to read it carefully though, but perhaps at least the
> changelog could explain more?

The changelog is admittedly terse, but that's basically all there is to
it -

Say you've got a device where you can have multiple outstanding
commands - you'll identify commands/responses by some integer (the
"tag"). Typically you won't get a full 64 bits for the tag, it might be
10 or 16 or 32 bits or whatever - and even if you could use raw pointers
you wouldn't really want to because then if the device gives you garbage
response you're derefing an untrusted pointer - you want to allocate tag
structures out of a fixed array so you can validate responses.

So you preallocate all your tag structures up front - now you can refer
to them by small fixed integers. But if you want to be able to
efficiently allocate from the same pool of tags across multiple CPUs -
well, that's what this code is for.
--
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/