linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] ipc, mqueue: lazy call kern_mount

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: <20171129141744.5d401ff613116b0bde02cff3@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Wed, 29 Nov 2017 14:17:44 -0800
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Giuseppe Scrivano <gscrivan@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        mingo@...nel.org, dave@...olabs.net
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] ipc, mqueue: lazy call kern_mount_data in new
 namespaces

On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 11:33:28 +0100 Giuseppe Scrivano <gscrivan@...hat.com> wrote:

> Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> writes:
> 
> > OK, but this simply moves the expense so it happens later on.  Why is
> > that better?
> 
> the optimization is for new IPC namespaces that don't use mq_open.  In
> this case there won't be any kern_mount_data cost at all.
> 

Fair enough.  Please add this paragraph (or similar) to the changelog:

: This is a net saving for new IPC namespaces that don't use mq_open().  In
: this case there won't be any kern_mount_data() cost at all

And..  the patch calls
kern_mount_data()->vfs_kern_mount()->...->kmem_cache_zalloc(GFP_KERNEL)
under spin_lock().  This should have created a might_sleep() warning in
your testing, but obviously did not.

Could you please find out why?  Do you have
CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP=n, I hope?  Please peruse
Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst, section 12...

I assume a suitable fix would be to create a new mutex (static to
do_mq_open()) to prevent concurrent mounting.