linux-kernel - Reply [PATCH] dm-verity: unnecessary data blocks that need not read hash blocks

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <727b9e9279a546beb2ae63a18eae6ab0@transsion.com>
Date:   Mon, 16 Dec 2019 02:02:33 +0000
From:   xianrong.zhou(周先荣) 
        <xianrong.zhou@...nssion.com>
To:     Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
CC:     "dm-devel@...hat.com" <dm-devel@...hat.com>,
        weimin.mao(毛卫民) <weimin.mao@...nssion.com>,
        haizhou.song(宋海舟) 
        <haizhou.song@...nssion.com>,
        "snitzer@...hat.com" <snitzer@...hat.com>,
        wanbin.wang(汪万斌) 
        <wanbin.wang@...nssion.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        yuanjiong.gao(高渊炯) 
        <yuanjiong.gao@...nssion.com>,
        ruxian.feng(冯儒娴) 
        <ruxian.feng@...nssion.com>, "agk@...hat.com" <agk@...hat.com>
Subject: Reply [PATCH] dm-verity: unnecessary data blocks that need not read
 hash blocks

hey Eric:

On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 11:32:40AM +0800, zhou xianrong wrote:
> From: "xianrong.zhou" <xianrong.zhou@...nssion.com>
> 
> If check_at_most_once enabled, just like verity work the prefetching 
> work should check for data block bitmap firstly before reading hash 
> block as well. Skip bit-set data blocks from both ends of data block 
> range by testing the validated bitmap. This can reduce the amounts of 
> data blocks which need to read hash blocks.
> 
> Launching 91 apps every 15s and repeat 21 rounds on Android Q.
> In prefetching work we can let only 2602/360312 = 0.72% data blocks 
> really need to read hash blocks.
> 
> But the reduced data blocks range would be enlarged again by 
> dm_verity_prefetch_cluster later.
> 
> Signed-off-by: xianrong.zhou <xianrong.zhou@...nssion.com>
> Signed-off-by: yuanjiong.gao <yuanjiong.gao@...nssion.com>
> Tested-by: ruxian.feng <ruxian.feng@...nssion.com>
> ---
>  drivers/md/dm-verity-target.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/md/dm-verity-target.c 
> b/drivers/md/dm-verity-target.c index 4fb33e7562c5..7b8eb754c0b6 
> 100644
> --- a/drivers/md/dm-verity-target.c
> +++ b/drivers/md/dm-verity-target.c
> @@ -581,6 +581,22 @@ static void verity_prefetch_io(struct work_struct *work)
>  	struct dm_verity *v = pw->v;
>  	int i;
>  
> +	if (v->validated_blocks) {
> +		while (pw->n_blocks) {
> +			if (unlikely(!test_bit(pw->block, v->validated_blocks)))
> +				break;
> +			pw->block++;
> +			pw->n_blocks--;
> +		}
> +		while (pw->n_blocks) {
> +			if (unlikely(!test_bit(pw->block + pw->n_blocks - 1,
> +				v->validated_blocks)))
> +				break;
> +			pw->n_blocks--;
> +		}
> +		if (!pw->n_blocks)
> +			return;
> +	}

This is a good idea, but shouldn't this logic go in verity_submit_prefetch() prior to the struct dm_verity_prefetch_work being allocated?  Then if no prefeching is needed, allocating and scheduling the work object can be skipped.

Eric, Do you mean it is more suitable in dm_bufio_prefetch which is called on different paths even though prefeching is disabled ?

Also note that you're currently leaking the work object with the early return.	

Right! I leaked this. always so. Thanks!!!

- Eric