linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/6] kmod: preempt on kmod_umh_threads

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:   Wed, 24 May 2017 19:27:38 -0700
From:   Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
To:     "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>
Cc:     shuah@...nel.org, jeyu@...hat.com, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
        ebiederm@...ssion.com, acme@...hat.com, corbet@....net,
        martin.wilck@...e.com, mmarek@...e.com, pmladek@...e.com,
        hare@...e.com, rwright@....com, jeffm@...e.com, DSterba@...e.com,
        fdmanana@...e.com, neilb@...e.com, linux@...ck-us.net,
        rgoldwyn@...e.com, subashab@...eaurora.org, xypron.glpk@....de,
        keescook@...omium.org, atomlin@...hat.com, mbenes@...e.cz,
        paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, dan.j.williams@...el.com,
        jpoimboe@...hat.com, davem@...emloft.net, mingo@...hat.com,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] kmod: preempt on kmod_umh_threads_get()

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 03:00:17AM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 05:45:37PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 02:14:52AM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 03:27:12PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > > On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 08:24:43PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > > > > In theory it is possible multiple concurrent threads will try to
> > > > > kmod_umh_threads_get() and as such atomic_inc(&kmod_concurrent) at
> > > > > the same time, therefore enabling a small time during which we've
> > > > > bumped kmod_concurrent but have not really enabled work. By using
> > > > > preemption we mitigate this a bit.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Preemption is not needed when we kmod_umh_threads_put().
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@...nel.org>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  kernel/kmod.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++--
> > > > >  1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > > > 
> > > > > diff --git a/kernel/kmod.c b/kernel/kmod.c
> > > > > index 563600fc9bb1..7ea11dbc7564 100644
> > > > > --- a/kernel/kmod.c
> > > > > +++ b/kernel/kmod.c
> > > > > @@ -113,15 +113,35 @@ static int call_modprobe(char *module_name, int wait)
> > > > >  
> > > > >  static int kmod_umh_threads_get(void)
> > > > >  {
> > > > > +	int ret = 0;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	/*
> > > > > +	 * Disabling preemption makes sure that we are not rescheduled here
> > > > > +	 *
> > > > > +	 * Also preemption helps kmod_concurrent is not increased by mistake
> > > > > +	 * for too long given in theory two concurrent threads could race on
> > > > > +	 * atomic_inc() before we atomic_read() -- we know that's possible
> > > > > +	 * and but we don't care, this is not used for object accounting and
> > > > > +	 * is just a subjective threshold. The alternative is a lock.
> > > > > +	 */
> > > > > +	preempt_disable();
> > > > >  	atomic_inc(&kmod_concurrent);
> > > > >  	if (atomic_read(&kmod_concurrent) <= max_modprobes)
> > > > 
> > > > That is very "fancy" way to basically say:
> > > > 
> > > > 	if (atomic_inc_return(&kmod_concurrent) <= max_modprobes)
> > > 
> > > Do you mean to combine the atomic_inc() and atomic_read() in one as you noted
> > > (as that is not a change in this patch), *or* that using a memory barrier here
> > > with atomic_inc_return() should suffice to address the same and avoid an
> > > explicit preemption  enable / disable ?
> > 
> > I am saying that atomic_inc_return() will avoid situation where you have
> > more than one threads incrementing the counter and believing that they
> > are [not] allowed to start modprobe.
> > 
> > I have no idea why you think preempt_disable() would help here. It only
> > ensures that current thread will not be preempted between the point
> > where you update the counter and where you check the result. It does not
> > stop interrupts nor does it affect other threads that might be updating
> > the same counter.
> 
> The preemption was inspired by __module_get() and try_module_get(), was that
> rather silly ?

As far as I can see prrempt_disable() was needed in __module_get() when
modules user per-cpu refcounts: you did not want to move away from CPU
while manipulating refcount.

Now that modules use simple atomics for refcounting I think these
preempt_disable() and preempt_enable() can be removed.

Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry