linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] mount: dont execute propagate

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: <20161006230616.GA2296@outlook.office365.com>
Date:   Thu, 6 Oct 2016 16:06:28 -0700
From:   Andrei Vagin <avagin@...tuozzo.com>
To:     "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
CC:     Andrei Vagin <avagin@...nvz.org>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mount: dont execute propagate_umount() many times for
 same mounts

On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 02:46:30PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Andrei Vagin <avagin@...nvz.org> writes:
> 
> > The reason of this optimization is that umount() can hold namespace_sem
> > for a long time, this semaphore is global, so it affects all users.
> > Recently Eric W. Biederman added a per mount namespace limit on the
> > number of mounts. The default number of mounts allowed per mount
> > namespace at 100,000. Currently this value is allowed to construct a tree
> > which requires hours to be umounted.
> 
> I am going to take a hard look at this as this problem sounds very
> unfortunate.  My memory of going through this code before strongly
> suggests that changing the last list_for_each_entry to
> list_for_each_entry_reverse is going to impact the correctness of this
> change.

I have read this code again and you are right, list_for_each_entry can't
be changed on list_for_each_entry_reverse here.

I tested these changes more carefully and find one more issue, so I am
going to send a new patch and would like to get your comments to it.

Thank you for your time.


> 
> The order of traversal is important if there are several things mounted
> one on the other that are all being unmounted.
> 
> Now perhaps your other changes have addressed that but I haven't looked
> closely enough to see that yet.
> 
> 
> > @@ -454,7 +473,7 @@ int propagate_umount(struct list_head *list)
> >  	list_for_each_entry_reverse(mnt, list, mnt_list)
> >  		mark_umount_candidates(mnt);
> >  
> > -	list_for_each_entry(mnt, list, mnt_list)
> > +	list_for_each_entry_reverse(mnt, list, mnt_list)
> >  		__propagate_umount(mnt);
> >  	return 0;
> >  }
> 
> Eric