linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 03/18] xen/pvcalls: initialize the module and register the xenbus backend

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: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1705161258250.4103@sstabellini-ThinkPad-X260>
Date:   Tue, 16 May 2017 13:05:24 -0700 (PDT)
From:   Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>
To:     Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>
cc:     Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>,
        xen-devel@...ts.xen.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        jgross@...e.com, Stefano Stabellini <stefano@...reto.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/18] xen/pvcalls: initialize the module and register
 the xenbus backend

On Mon, 15 May 2017, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 05/15/2017 04:35 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > The pvcalls backend has one ioworker per cpu: the ioworkers are
> > implemented as a cpu bound workqueue, and will deal with the actual
> > socket and data ring reads/writes.
> > 
> > ioworkers are global: we only have one set for all the frontends. They
> > process requests on their wqs list in order, once they are done with a
> > request, they'll remove it from the list. A spinlock is used for
> > protecting the list. Each ioworker is bound to a different cpu to
> > maximize throughput.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini <stefano@...reto.com>
> > CC: boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com
> > CC: jgross@...e.com
> > ---
> >  drivers/xen/pvcalls-back.c | 64
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 64 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/xen/pvcalls-back.c b/drivers/xen/pvcalls-back.c
> > index 2dbf7d8..46a889a 100644
> > --- a/drivers/xen/pvcalls-back.c
> > +++ b/drivers/xen/pvcalls-back.c
> > @@ -25,6 +25,26 @@
> >  #include <xen/xenbus.h>
> >  #include <xen/interface/io/pvcalls.h>
> > 
> > +struct pvcalls_ioworker {
> > +	struct work_struct register_work;
> > +	atomic_t io;
> > +	struct list_head wqs;
> > +	spinlock_t lock;
> > +	int num;
> > +};
> > +
> > +struct pvcalls_back_global {
> > +	struct pvcalls_ioworker *ioworkers;
> > +	int nr_ioworkers;
> > +	struct workqueue_struct *wq;
> > +	struct list_head privs;
> > +	struct rw_semaphore privs_lock;
> 
> Is there a reason why these are called "privs"?

I realize it is a silly name :-)
It is called "privs" because it is a list of "priv" where priv is the
private per frontend data structure. I could call it "frontends"?


> And why are you using a rw semaphore --- I only noticed two instances of use
> and both are writes.

Yes, this is wrong, legacy from a previous version of the codebase. A
simple spin_lock should suffice for this use-case.


> > +} pvcalls_back_global;
> > +
> > +static void pvcalls_back_ioworker(struct work_struct *work)
> > +{
> > +}
> > +
> >  static int pvcalls_back_probe(struct xenbus_device *dev,
> >  			      const struct xenbus_device_id *id)
> >  {
> > @@ -59,3 +79,47 @@ static int pvcalls_back_uevent(struct xenbus_device
> > *xdev,
> >  	.uevent = pvcalls_back_uevent,
> >  	.otherend_changed = pvcalls_back_changed,
> >  };
> > +
> > +static int __init pvcalls_back_init(void)
> > +{
> > +	int ret, i, cpu;
> > +
> > +	if (!xen_domain())
> > +		return -ENODEV;
> > +
> > +	ret = xenbus_register_backend(&pvcalls_back_driver);
> > +	if (ret < 0)
> > +		return ret;
> > +
> > +	init_rwsem(&pvcalls_back_global.privs_lock);
> > +	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&pvcalls_back_global.privs);
> > +	pvcalls_back_global.wq = alloc_workqueue("pvcalls_io", 0, 0);
> > +	if (!pvcalls_back_global.wq)
> > +		goto error;
> > +	pvcalls_back_global.nr_ioworkers = num_online_cpus();
> 
> 
> Should nr_ioworkers be updated on CPU hot(un)plug?

I thought about it, but I don't think it is worth introducing the
complexity to deal with dynamic ioworkers allocations.


 
> > +	pvcalls_back_global.ioworkers = kzalloc(
> > +		sizeof(*pvcalls_back_global.ioworkers) *
> > +		pvcalls_back_global.nr_ioworkers, GFP_KERNEL);
> > +	if (!pvcalls_back_global.ioworkers)
> > +		goto error;
> > +	i = 0;
> > +	for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
> > +		pvcalls_back_global.ioworkers[i].num = i;
> > +		atomic_set(&pvcalls_back_global.ioworkers[i].io, 1);
> > +		spin_lock_init(&pvcalls_back_global.ioworkers[i].lock);
> > +		INIT_LIST_HEAD(&pvcalls_back_global.ioworkers[i].wqs);
> > +		INIT_WORK(&pvcalls_back_global.ioworkers[i].register_work,
> > +			pvcalls_back_ioworker);
> > +		i++;
> > +	}
> > +	return 0;
> > +
> > +error:
> > +	if (pvcalls_back_global.wq)
> > +		destroy_workqueue(pvcalls_back_global.wq);
> > +	xenbus_unregister_driver(&pvcalls_back_driver);
> > +	kfree(pvcalls_back_global.ioworkers);
> > +	memset(&pvcalls_back_global, 0, sizeof(pvcalls_back_global));
> > +	return -ENOMEM;
> 
> This routine could use more newlines. (and in other patches too)

I'll sprinkle some around


> > +}
> > +module_init(pvcalls_back_init);