| 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: <20150421201201.GB16097@mguzik>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 22:12:02 +0200
From: Mateusz Guzik <mguzik@...hat.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Yann Droneaud <ydroneaud@...eya.com>,
Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] fs: use a sequence counter instead of file_lock in
fd_install
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 10:06:24PM +0200, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 11:05:43AM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > On Mon, 2015-04-20 at 13:49 -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2015-04-20 at 10:15 -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2015-04-20 at 17:10 +0200, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Sorry for spam but I came up with another hack. :)
> > > > >
> > > > > The idea is that we can have a variable which would signify the that
> > > > > given thread is playing with fd table in fd_install (kind of a lock
> > > > > embedded into task_struct). We would also have a flag in files struct
> > > > > indicating that a thread would like to resize it.
> > > > >
> > > > > expand_fdtable would set the flag and iterate over all threads waiting
> > > > > for all of them to have the var set to 0.
> > > >
> > > > The opposite : you have to block them in some way and add a rcu_sched()
> > > > or something.
> > >
>
> What I described would block them, although it was a crappy approach
> (iterating threads vs cpus). I was wondering if RCU could be abused for
> this feature and apparently it can.
>
> > > Here is the patch I cooked here but not yet tested.
> >
> > In following version :
> >
> > 1) I replaced the yield() hack by a proper wait queue.
> >
> > 2) I do not invoke synchronize_sched() for mono threaded programs.
> >
> > 3) I avoid multiple threads doing a resize and then only one wins the
> > deal.
> >
>
> One could argue this last bit could be committed separately (a different
> logical change).
>
> As I read up about synchronize_sched and rcu_read_lock_sched, the code
> should be correct.
>
> Also see nits below.
>
I'm utter crap with memory barriers, but I believe some are needed now:
in dup_fd:
for (i = open_files; i != 0; i--) {
struct file *f = *old_fds++;
if (f) {
get_file(f);
at least a data dependency barrier, or maybe smp_rmb for peace of mind
similarly in do_dup2:
tofree = fdt->fd[fd];
if (!tofree && fd_is_open(fd, fdt))
goto Ebusy;
> > (copying/clearing big amount of memory only to discover another guy did
> > the same is a big waste of resources)
> >
> >
> > This seems to run properly on my hosts.
> >
> > Your comments/tests are most welcomed, thanks !
> >
> > fs/file.c | 41 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> > include/linux/fdtable.h | 3 ++
> > 2 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/file.c b/fs/file.c
> > index 93c5f89c248b..e0e113a56444 100644
> > --- a/fs/file.c
> > +++ b/fs/file.c
> > @@ -147,6 +147,9 @@ static int expand_fdtable(struct files_struct *files, int nr)
> >
> > spin_unlock(&files->file_lock);
> > new_fdt = alloc_fdtable(nr);
> > + /* make sure no __fd_install() are still updating fdt */
> > + if (atomic_read(&files->count) > 1)
> > + synchronize_sched();
> > spin_lock(&files->file_lock);
> > if (!new_fdt)
> > return -ENOMEM;
> > @@ -170,9 +173,12 @@ static int expand_fdtable(struct files_struct *files, int nr)
> > if (cur_fdt != &files->fdtab)
> > call_rcu(&cur_fdt->rcu, free_fdtable_rcu);
> > } else {
> > + WARN_ON_ONCE(1);
> > /* Somebody else expanded, so undo our attempt */
> > __free_fdtable(new_fdt);
>
> The reader may be left confused why there is a warning while the comment
> does not indicate anything is wrong.
>
> > }
> > + /* coupled with smp_rmb() in __fd_install() */
> > + smp_wmb();
> > return 1;
> > }
> >
> > @@ -187,19 +193,33 @@ static int expand_fdtable(struct files_struct *files, int nr)
> > static int expand_files(struct files_struct *files, int nr)
> > {
> > struct fdtable *fdt;
> > + int expanded = 0;
> >
> > +begin:
> > fdt = files_fdtable(files);
> >
> > /* Do we need to expand? */
> > if (nr < fdt->max_fds)
> > - return 0;
> > + return expanded;
> >
> > /* Can we expand? */
> > if (nr >= sysctl_nr_open)
> > return -EMFILE;
> >
> > + while (unlikely(files->resize_in_progress)) {
> > + spin_unlock(&files->file_lock);
> > + expanded = 1;
> > + wait_event(files->resize_wait, !files->resize_in_progress);
> > + spin_lock(&files->file_lock);
> > + goto begin;
> > + }
>
> This does not loop anymore, so s/while/if/ ?
>
> > +
> > /* All good, so we try */
> > - return expand_fdtable(files, nr);
> > + files->resize_in_progress = true;
> > + expanded = expand_fdtable(files, nr);
> > + files->resize_in_progress = false;
> > + wake_up_all(&files->resize_wait);
> > + return expanded;
> > }
> >
> > static inline void __set_close_on_exec(int fd, struct fdtable *fdt)
> > @@ -256,6 +276,8 @@ struct files_struct *dup_fd(struct files_struct *oldf, int *errorp)
> > atomic_set(&newf->count, 1);
> >
> > spin_lock_init(&newf->file_lock);
> > + newf->resize_in_progress = 0;
> > + init_waitqueue_head(&newf->resize_wait);
> > newf->next_fd = 0;
> > new_fdt = &newf->fdtab;
> > new_fdt->max_fds = NR_OPEN_DEFAULT;
> > @@ -553,11 +575,20 @@ void __fd_install(struct files_struct *files, unsigned int fd,
> > struct file *file)
> > {
> > struct fdtable *fdt;
> > - spin_lock(&files->file_lock);
> > - fdt = files_fdtable(files);
> > +
> > + rcu_read_lock_sched();
> > +
> > + while (unlikely(files->resize_in_progress)) {
> > + rcu_read_unlock_sched();
> > + wait_event(files->resize_wait, !files->resize_in_progress);
> > + rcu_read_lock_sched();
> > + }
> > + /* coupled with smp_wmb() in expand_fdtable() */
> > + smp_rmb();
> > + fdt = READ_ONCE(files->fdt);
> > BUG_ON(fdt->fd[fd] != NULL);
> > rcu_assign_pointer(fdt->fd[fd], file);
> > - spin_unlock(&files->file_lock);
> > + rcu_read_unlock_sched();
> > }
> >
> > void fd_install(unsigned int fd, struct file *file)
> > diff --git a/include/linux/fdtable.h b/include/linux/fdtable.h
> > index 230f87bdf5ad..fbb88740634a 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/fdtable.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/fdtable.h
> > @@ -47,6 +47,9 @@ struct files_struct {
> > * read mostly part
> > */
> > atomic_t count;
> > + bool resize_in_progress;
> > + wait_queue_head_t resize_wait;
> > +
> > struct fdtable __rcu *fdt;
> > struct fdtable fdtab;
> > /*
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Mateusz Guzik
--
Mateusz Guzik
--
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