| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20180810003650.GB3915@fieldses.org>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2018 20:36:50 -0400
From: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
To: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>
Cc: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Martin Wilck <mwilck@...e.de>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
Frank Filz <ffilzlnx@...dspring.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] fs/locks: create a tree of dependent requests.
On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 08:19:26AM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 09 2018, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > I think you could simplify the code a lot by maintaining the tree so
> > that it always satisfies the condition that waiters are always strictly
> > "weaker" than their descendents, so that finding a conflict with a
> > waiter is always enough to know that the descendents also conflict.
>
> Can you define "weaker" please.
> I suspect it is a partial ordering, in which case a tree would normally
> be more appropriate than trying to find a total ordering.
Lock X is stronger than lock Y if any lock that would conflict with lock
Y would also conflict with lock X.
Equivalently, X is stronger than Y if lock X's range is a superset of
lock Y's and if X is a write lock whenever Y is. Well, I *thought* that
was equivalent until I thought about the owner problem. Ugh.
--b.
>
> Thanks,
> NeilBrown
>
> >
> > So, when you put a waiter to sleep, you don't add it below a child
> > unless it's "stronger" than the child.
> >
> > You give up the property that siblings don't conflict, but again that
> > just means thundering herds in weird cases, which is OK.
> >
> > --b.
> >
> >>
> >> Reported-and-tested-by: Martin Wilck <mwilck@...e.de>
> >> Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>
> >> ---
> >> fs/locks.c | 69 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> >> 1 file changed, 63 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c
> >> index fc64016d01ee..17843feb6f5b 100644
> >> --- a/fs/locks.c
> >> +++ b/fs/locks.c
> >> @@ -738,6 +738,39 @@ static void locks_delete_block(struct file_lock *waiter)
> >> spin_unlock(&blocked_lock_lock);
> >> }
> >>
> >> +static void wake_non_conflicts(struct file_lock *waiter, struct file_lock *blocker,
> >> + enum conflict conflict(struct file_lock *,
> >> + struct file_lock *))
> >> +{
> >> + struct file_lock *parent = waiter;
> >> + struct file_lock *fl;
> >> + struct file_lock *t;
> >> +
> >> + fl = list_entry(&parent->fl_blocked, struct file_lock, fl_block);
> >> +restart:
> >> + list_for_each_entry_safe_continue(fl, t, &parent->fl_blocked, fl_block) {
> >> + switch (conflict(fl, blocker)) {
> >> + default:
> >> + case FL_NO_CONFLICT:
> >> + __locks_wake_one(fl);
> >> + break;
> >> + case FL_CONFLICT:
> >> + /* Need to check children */
> >> + parent = fl;
> >> + fl = list_entry(&parent->fl_blocked, struct file_lock, fl_block);
> >> + goto restart;
> >> + case FL_TRANSITIVE_CONFLICT:
> >> + /* all children must also conflict, no need to check */
> >> + continue;
> >> + }
> >> + }
> >> + if (parent != waiter) {
> >> + parent = parent->fl_blocker;
> >> + fl = parent;
> >> + goto restart;
> >> + }
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> /* Insert waiter into blocker's block list.
> >> * We use a circular list so that processes can be easily woken up in
> >> * the order they blocked. The documentation doesn't require this but
> >> @@ -747,11 +780,32 @@ static void locks_delete_block(struct file_lock *waiter)
> >> * fl_blocked list itself is protected by the blocked_lock_lock, but by ensuring
> >> * that the flc_lock is also held on insertions we can avoid taking the
> >> * blocked_lock_lock in some cases when we see that the fl_blocked list is empty.
> >> + *
> >> + * Rather than just adding to the list, we check for conflicts with any existing
> >> + * waiter, and add to that waiter instead.
> >> + * Thus wakeups don't happen until needed.
> >> */
> >> static void __locks_insert_block(struct file_lock *blocker,
> >> - struct file_lock *waiter)
> >> + struct file_lock *waiter,
> >> + enum conflict conflict(struct file_lock *,
> >> + struct file_lock *))
> >> {
> >> + struct file_lock *fl;
> >> BUG_ON(!list_empty(&waiter->fl_block));
> >> +
> >> + /* Any request in waiter->fl_blocked is know to conflict with
> >> + * waiter, but it might not conflict with blocker.
> >> + * If it doesn't, it needs to be woken now so it can find
> >> + * somewhere else to wait, or possible it can get granted.
> >> + */
> >> + if (conflict(waiter, blocker) != FL_TRANSITIVE_CONFLICT)
> >> + wake_non_conflicts(waiter, blocker, conflict);
> >> +new_blocker:
> >> + list_for_each_entry(fl, &blocker->fl_blocked, fl_block)
> >> + if (conflict(fl, waiter)) {
> >> + blocker = fl;
> >> + goto new_blocker;
> >> + }
> >> waiter->fl_blocker = blocker;
> >> list_add_tail(&waiter->fl_block, &blocker->fl_blocked);
> >> if (IS_POSIX(blocker) && !IS_OFDLCK(blocker))
> >> @@ -760,10 +814,12 @@ static void __locks_insert_block(struct file_lock *blocker,
> >>
> >> /* Must be called with flc_lock held. */
> >> static void locks_insert_block(struct file_lock *blocker,
> >> - struct file_lock *waiter)
> >> + struct file_lock *waiter,
> >> + enum conflict conflict(struct file_lock *,
> >> + struct file_lock *))
> >> {
> >> spin_lock(&blocked_lock_lock);
> >> - __locks_insert_block(blocker, waiter);
> >> + __locks_insert_block(blocker, waiter, conflict);
> >> spin_unlock(&blocked_lock_lock);
> >> }
> >>
> >> @@ -1033,7 +1089,7 @@ static int flock_lock_inode(struct inode *inode, struct file_lock *request)
> >> if (!(request->fl_flags & FL_SLEEP))
> >> goto out;
> >> error = FILE_LOCK_DEFERRED;
> >> - locks_insert_block(fl, request);
> >> + locks_insert_block(fl, request, flock_locks_conflict);
> >> goto out;
> >> }
> >> if (request->fl_flags & FL_ACCESS)
> >> @@ -1107,7 +1163,8 @@ static int posix_lock_inode(struct inode *inode, struct file_lock *request,
> >> spin_lock(&blocked_lock_lock);
> >> if (likely(!posix_locks_deadlock(request, fl))) {
> >> error = FILE_LOCK_DEFERRED;
> >> - __locks_insert_block(fl, request);
> >> + __locks_insert_block(fl, request,
> >> + posix_locks_conflict);
> >> }
> >> spin_unlock(&blocked_lock_lock);
> >> goto out;
> >> @@ -1581,7 +1638,7 @@ int __break_lease(struct inode *inode, unsigned int mode, unsigned int type)
> >> break_time -= jiffies;
> >> if (break_time == 0)
> >> break_time++;
> >> - locks_insert_block(fl, new_fl);
> >> + locks_insert_block(fl, new_fl, leases_conflict);
> >> trace_break_lease_block(inode, new_fl);
> >> spin_unlock(&ctx->flc_lock);
> >> percpu_up_read_preempt_enable(&file_rwsem);
> >>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists