linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv6 1/3] rdmacg: Added rdma cgroup controller

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]

Message-ID: <CAG53R5UZb=9WR7zk2b5C_FuKmt+WdNkbcrVbW+g1-oAj6J=w_Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 25 Feb 2016 19:04:56 +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,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, lizefan@...wei.com,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
	Liran Liss <liranl@...lanox.com>,
	"Hefty, Sean" <sean.hefty@...el.com>,
	Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.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: [PATCHv6 1/3] rdmacg: Added rdma cgroup controller

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 5:33 PM, Haggai Eran <haggaie@...lanox.com> wrote:
>>>> +retry:
>>>> +     spin_lock(&cg->rpool_list_lock);
>>>> +     rpool = find_cg_rpool_locked(cg, device);
>>>> +     if (!rpool) {
>>>> +             spin_unlock(&cg->rpool_list_lock);
>>>> +             ret = alloc_cg_rpool(cg, device);
>>>> +             if (ret)
>>>> +                     goto err;
>>>> +             else
>>>> +                     goto retry;
>>> Instead of retrying after allocation of a new rpool, why not just return the
>>> newly allocated rpool (or the existing one) from alloc_cg_rpool?
>>
>> It can be done, but locking semantics just becomes difficult to
>> review/maintain with that where alloc_cg_rpool will unlock and lock
>> conditionally later on.
> Maybe I'm missing something, but couldn't you simply lock rpool_list_lock
> inside alloc_cg_rpool()? It already does that around its call to
> find_cg_rpool_locked() and the insertion to cg_list.

No. ref_count and usage counters are updated at level where lock is
taken in charge_cg_resource().
If I move locking rpool_list_lock inside alloc_cg_rpool, unlocking
will continue outside, alloc_cg_rpool() when its found or allocated.
As you acknowledged in below comment that this makes confusing to
lock/unlock from different context, I think current implementation
achieves both.
(a) take lock from single context
(b) keep functionality of find and alloc in two separate individual functions

>
>> This path will be hit anyway on first allocation typically. Once
>> application is warm up, it will be unlikely to enter here.
>> I should change if(!rpool) to if (unlikely(!rpool)).
> Theoretically the new allocated rpool can be released again by the time you
> get to the second call to find_cg_rpool_locked().
>
Thats ok, because if that occurs find_cg_rpool_locked() won't find the
entry and will try to allocate again.
Things work fine in that case.

> I thought that was about functions that only locked the lock, called the
> find function, and released the lock. What I'm suggesting is to have one
> function that does "lock + find + allocate if needed + unlock",

I had similar function in past which does,
"lock + find + allocate if needed + + inc_ref_cnt + unlock", (get_cg_rpool)
update usage_counter atomically, because other thread/process might update too.
check atomic_dec_cnt - on reaching zero, "lock + del_entry + unlock + free".

Tejun asked to simplify this to,

"lock + find + allocate if needed + inc_ref_cnt_without_atomic" + unlock".
which I did in this patch v6.

> and another
> function that does (under caller's lock) "check ref count + check max count +
> release rpool".
This can be done. Have one dumb basic question for thiat.
Can we call kfree() with spin_lock held? All these years I tend to
avoid doing so.