linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] blkcg: not hold blkcg lock when deactivating policy.

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <F9E297E7-9937-41D8-94E9-D3A9B871D1AA@linaro.org>
Date:   Wed, 18 Apr 2018 14:45:57 +0200
From:   Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@...aro.org>
To:     jiang.biao2@....com.cn
Cc:     axboe@...nel.dk, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tj@...nel.org,
        zhong.weidong@....com.cn, wen.yang99@....com.cn,
        ulf.hansson@...aro.org, linus.walleij@...aro.org,
        broonie@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] blkcg: not hold blkcg lock when deactivating policy.



> Il giorno 18 apr 2018, alle ore 11:18, jiang.biao2@....com.cn ha scritto:
> 
> Hi,
>>> Il giorno 17 apr 2018, alle ore 09:10, Jiang Biao <jiang.biao2@....com.cn> ha scritto:
>>> 
>>> As described in the comment of blkcg_activate_policy(),
>>> *Update of each blkg is protected by both queue and blkcg locks so
>>> that holding either lock and testing blkcg_policy_enabled() is
>>> always enough for dereferencing policy data.*
>>> with queue lock held, there is no need to hold blkcg lock in
>>> blkcg_deactivate_policy(). Similar case is in
>>> blkcg_activate_policy(), which has removed holding of blkcg lock in
>>> commit 4c55f4f9ad3001ac1fefdd8d8ca7641d18558e23.
>>> 
>> 
>> Hi,
>> by chance, did you check whether this may cause problems with bfq,
>> being the latter not protected by the queue lock as cfq?
> Checked the bfq code, bfq seems never used blkcg lock derectly, and 
> update of blkg in the common code is protected by both queue and 
> blkcg locks, so IMHO this patch would not introduce any new problem
> with bfq, even though bfq is not protected by queue lock.

Thank you very much for checking. Then:

Acked-by: Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@...aro.org>

Thanks,
Paolo

> On the other hand, the locks (queue lock/blkcg lock) used to protected
> the update of blkg seems a bit too heavyweight, especially the queue lock 
> which is used too widely may cause races with other contexts. I wonder
> if there is any way to ease the case? e.g. add a new lock for blkg's own.:) 
> 
> Jiang,
> Regards