linux-kernel - Re: [dm-devel] [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-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200103182418.GQ19521@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 3 Jan 2020 10:24:19 -0800
From:   Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
To:     xianrong.zhou(周先荣) 
        <xianrong.zhou@...nssion.com>
Cc:     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>,
        "dm-devel@...hat.com" <dm-devel@...hat.com>,
        ruxian.feng(冯儒娴) 
        <ruxian.feng@...nssion.com>, "agk@...hat.com" <agk@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH] dm-verity: unnecessary data blocks that need
 not read hash blocks

On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 10:50:26AM -0800, Eric Biggers wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 02:02:33AM +0000, xianrong.zhou(周先荣) wrote:
> > 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 ?
> > 
> 
> No, I'm talking about verity_submit_prefetch().  verity_submit_prefetch()
> allocates and schedules a work object, which executes verity_prefetch_io().
> If all data blocks in the I/O request were already validated, there's no need to
> allocate and schedule the prefetch work.
> 
> - Eric
> 

Are you planning to send a new version of this patch?

- Eric