linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/7] devcg: device cgroup's extension for RDMA resource.

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:	Tue, 8 Sep 2015 19:43:04 +0530
From:	Parav Pandit <pandit.parav@...il.com>
To:	Haggai Eran <haggaie@...lanox.com>
Cc:	cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
	tj@...nel.org, lizefan@...wei.com,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, james.l.morris@...cle.com,
	serge@...lyn.com, Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>,
	Matan Barak <matanb@...lanox.com>, raindel@...lanox.com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] devcg: device cgroup's extension for RDMA resource.

On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 7:20 PM, Haggai Eran <haggaie@...lanox.com> wrote:
> On 08/09/2015 13:18, Parav Pandit wrote:
>>> >
>>>> >> + * RDMA resource limits are hierarchical, so the highest configured limit of
>>>> >> + * the hierarchy is enforced. Allowing resource limit configuration to default
>>>> >> + * cgroup allows fair share to kernel space ULPs as well.
>>> > In what way is the highest configured limit of the hierarchy enforced? I
>>> > would expect all the limits along the hierarchy to be enforced.
>>> >
>> In  hierarchy, of say 3 cgroups, the smallest limit of the cgroup is applied.
>>
>> Lets take example to clarify.
>> Say cg_A, cg_B, cg_C
>> Role              name                           limit
>> Parent           cg_A                           100
>> Child_level1  cg_B (child of cg_A)    20
>> Child_level2: cg_C (child of cg_B)    50
>>
>> If the process allocating rdma resource belongs to cg_C, limit lowest
>> limit in the hierarchy is applied during charge() stage.
>> If cg_A limit happens to be 10, since 10 is lowest, its limit would be
>> applicable as you expected.
>
> Looking at the code, the usage in every level is charged. This is what I
> would expect. I just think the comment is a bit misleading.
>
>>>> +int devcgroup_rdma_get_max_resource(struct seq_file *sf, void *v)
>>>> +{
>>>> +     struct dev_cgroup *dev_cg = css_to_devcgroup(seq_css(sf));
>>>> +     int type = seq_cft(sf)->private;
>>>> +     u32 usage;
>>>> +
>>>> +     if (dev_cg->rdma.tracker[type].limit == DEVCG_RDMA_MAX_RESOURCES) {
>>>> +             seq_printf(sf, "%s\n", DEVCG_RDMA_MAX_RESOURCE_STR);
>>> I'm not sure hiding the actual number is good, especially in the
>>> show_usage case.
>>
>> This is similar to following other controller same as newly added PID
>> subsystem in showing max limit.
>
> Okay.
>
>>>> +void devcgroup_rdma_uncharge_resource(struct ib_ucontext *ucontext,
>>>> +                                   enum devcgroup_rdma_rt type, int num)
>>>> +{
>>>> +     struct dev_cgroup *dev_cg, *p;
>>>> +     struct task_struct *ctx_task;
>>>> +
>>>> +     if (!num)
>>>> +             return;
>>>> +
>>>> +     /* get cgroup of ib_ucontext it belong to, to uncharge
>>>> +      * so that when its called from any worker tasks or any
>>>> +      * other tasks to which this resource doesn't belong to,
>>>> +      * it can be uncharged correctly.
>>>> +      */
>>>> +     if (ucontext)
>>>> +             ctx_task = get_pid_task(ucontext->tgid, PIDTYPE_PID);
>>>> +     else
>>>> +             ctx_task = current;
>>>> +     dev_cg = task_devcgroup(ctx_task);
>>>> +
>>>> +     spin_lock(&ctx_task->rdma_res_counter->lock);
>>> Don't you need an rcu read lock and rcu_dereference to access
>>> rdma_res_counter?
>>
>> I believe, its not required because when uncharge() is happening, it
>> can happen only from 3 contexts.
>> (a) from the caller task context, who has made allocation call, so no
>> synchronizing needed.
>> (b) from the dealloc resource context, again this is from the same
>> task context which allocated, it so this is single threaded, no need
>> to syncronize.
> I don't think it is true. You can access uverbs from multiple threads.
Yes, thats right. Though I design counter structure allocation on per
task basis for individual thread access, I totally missed out ucontext
sharing among threads. I replied in other thread to make counters
during charge, uncharge to atomic to cover that case.
Therefore I need rcu lock and deference as well.

> What may help your case here I think is the fact that only when the last
> ucontext is released you can change the rdma_res_counter field, and
> ucontext release takes the ib_uverbs_file->mutex.
>
> Still, I think it would be best to use rcu_dereference(), if only for
> documentation and sparse.

yes.

>
>> (c) from the fput() context when process is terminated abruptly or as
>> part of differed cleanup, when this is happening there cannot be
>> allocator task anyway.
>
--
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/