linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/13] convert block layer to bioset_init()/mempool

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: <61e30dcf-a01c-f47d-087a-12930caf9aef@kernel.dk>
Date:   Mon, 21 May 2018 09:09:37 -0600
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:     Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>
Cc:     Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
        hch@...radead.org, colyli@...e.de, darrick.wong@...cle.com,
        clm@...com, bacik@...com, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
        drbd-dev@...ts.linbit.com, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-raid@...r.kernel.org, neilb@...e.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/13] convert block layer to bioset_init()/mempool_init()

On 5/21/18 9:04 AM, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> On Mon, May 21 2018 at 10:52am -0400,
> Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk> wrote:
> 
>> On 5/21/18 8:47 AM, Mike Snitzer wrote:
>>> On Mon, May 21 2018 at 10:36am -0400,
>>> Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/21/18 8:31 AM, Mike Snitzer wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, May 21 2018 at 10:19am -0400,
>>>>> Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/21/18 8:03 AM, Mike Snitzer wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, May 20 2018 at  6:25pm -0400,
>>>>>>> Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...il.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jens - this series does the rest of the conversions that Christoph wanted, and
>>>>>>>> drops bioset_create().
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Only lightly tested, but the changes are pretty mechanical. Based on your
>>>>>>>> for-next tree.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> By switching 'mempool_t *' to 'mempool_t' and 'bio_set *' to 'bio_set'
>>>>>>> you've altered the alignment of members in data structures.  So I'll
>>>>>>> need to audit all the data structures you've modified in DM.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Could we get the backstory on _why_ you're making this change?
>>>>>>> Would go a long way to helping me appreciate why this is a good use of
>>>>>>> anyone's time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah, it's in the first series, it gets rid of a pointer indirection.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Allows mempools to be embedded in other structs, getting rid of a
>>>>> pointer indirection from allocation fastpaths."
>>>>>
>>>>> So this is about using contiguous memory or avoiding partial allocation
>>>>> failure?  Or both?
>>>>>
>>>>> Or more to it?  Just trying to fully appreciate the theory behind the
>>>>> perceived associated benefit.
>>>>
>>>> It's about avoiding a pointer indirection. Instead of having to
>>>> follow a pointer to get to that struct, it's simple offset math off
>>>> your main structure.
>>>>
>>>>> I do think the increased risk of these embedded bio_set and mempool_t
>>>>> themselves crossing cachelines, or struct members that follow them doing
>>>>> so, really detracts from these types of changes.
>>>>
>>>> Definitely something to look out for, though most of them should be
>>>> per-dev structures and not in-flight structures. That makes it a bit
>>>> less sensitive. But can't hurt to audit the layouts and adjust if
>>>> necessary. This is why it's posted for review :-)
>>>
>>> This isn't something that is easily caught upfront.  Yes we can all be
>>> busy little beavers with pahole to audit alignment.  But chances are
>>> most people won't do it.
>>>
>>> Reality is there is potential for a regression due to false sharing to
>>> creep in if a hot struct member suddenly starts straddling a cacheline.
>>> That type of NUMA performance killer is pretty insidious and somewhat
>>> tedious to hunt down even when looking for it with specialized tools:
>>> https://joemario.github.io/blog/2016/09/01/c2c-blog/
>>
>> IMHO you're making a big deal out of something that should not be.
> 
> I raised an issue that had seemingly not been considered at all.  Not
> making a big deal.  Raising it for others' benefit.
> 
>> If the dm bits are that sensitive and cache line honed to perfection
>> already due to previous regressions in that area, then it might
>> not be a bad idea to have some compile checks for false cacheline
>> sharing between sensitive members, or spilling of a sub-struct
>> into multiple cachelines.
>>
>> It's not like this was pushed behind your back. It's posted for
>> review. It's quite possible the net change is a win for dm. Let's
>> focus on getting it reviewed, rather than pontificate on what
>> could potentially go all wrong with this.
> 
> Why are you making this personal?  Or purely about DM?  I'm merely
> pointing out this change isn't something that can be given a quick
> blanket "looks good".

I'm not making this personal at all?! You raised a (valid) concern,
I'm merely stating why I don't think it's a high risk issue. I'm
assuming your worry is related to dm, as those are the reports
that would ultimately land on your desk.

-- 
Jens Axboe