linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/1] net: Reduce rcu_barrier() contentions from 'unshare(CLONE

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: <CANn89i+egqwjJqGE6mZFB+-GuT_1dOQJP=pccREEZvEwQ1SGiw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 10 Dec 2020 15:09:10 +0100
From:   Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
To:     SeongJae Park <sjpark@...zon.com>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        SeongJae Park <sjpark@...zon.de>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
        Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, rcu@...r.kernel.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/1] net: Reduce rcu_barrier() contentions from 'unshare(CLONE_NEWNET)'

On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 9:09 AM SeongJae Park <sjpark@...zon.com> wrote:
>
> From: SeongJae Park <sjpark@...zon.de>
>
> On a few of our systems, I found frequent 'unshare(CLONE_NEWNET)' calls
> make the number of active slab objects including 'sock_inode_cache' type
> rapidly and continuously increase.  As a result, memory pressure occurs.
>
> In more detail, I made an artificial reproducer that resembles the
> workload that we found the problem and reproduce the problem faster.  It
> merely repeats 'unshare(CLONE_NEWNET)' 50,000 times in a loop.  It takes
> about 2 minutes.  On 40 CPU cores, 70GB DRAM machine, it reduced about
> 15GB of available memory in total.  Note that the issue don't reproduce
> on every machine.  On my 6 CPU cores machine, the problem didn't
> reproduce.

OK, that is the number before the patch, but what is the number after
the patch ?

I think the idea is very nice, but this will serialize fqdir hash
tables destruction on one single cpu,
this might become a real issue _if_ these hash tables are populated.

(Obviously in your for (i=1;i<50000;i++) unshare(CLONE_NEWNET);  all
these tables are empty...)

As you may now, frags are often used as vectors for DDOS attacks.

I would suggest maybe to not (ab)use system_wq, but a dedicated work queue
with a limit (@max_active argument set to 1 in alloc_workqueue()) , to
make sure that the number of
threads is optimal/bounded.

Only the phase after hash table removal could benefit from your
deferral to a single context,
so that a single rcu_barrier() is active, since the part after
rcu_barrier() is damn cheap and _can_ be serialized

  if (refcount_dec_and_test(&f->refcnt))
                complete(&f->completion);

Thanks !

>
> 'cleanup_net()' and 'fqdir_work_fn()' are functions that deallocate the
> relevant memory objects.  They are asynchronously invoked by the work
> queues and internally use 'rcu_barrier()' to ensure safe destructions.
> 'cleanup_net()' works in a batched maneer in a single thread worker,
> while 'fqdir_work_fn()' works for each 'fqdir_exit()' call in the
> 'system_wq'.
>
> Therefore, 'fqdir_work_fn()' called frequently under the workload and
> made the contention for 'rcu_barrier()' high.  In more detail, the
> global mutex, 'rcu_state.barrier_mutex' became the bottleneck.
>
> I tried making 'fqdir_work_fn()' batched and confirmed it works.  The
> following patch is for the change.  I think this is the right solution
> for point fix of this issue, but someone might blame different parts.
>
> 1. User: Frequent 'unshare()' calls
> From some point of view, such frequent 'unshare()' calls might seem only
> insane.
>
> 2. Global mutex in 'rcu_barrier()'
> Because of the global mutex, 'rcu_barrier()' callers could wait long
> even after the callbacks started before the call finished.  Therefore,
> similar issues could happen in another 'rcu_barrier()' usages.  Maybe we
> can use some wait queue like mechanism to notify the waiters when the
> desired time came.
>
> I personally believe applying the point fix for now and making
> 'rcu_barrier()' improvement in longterm make sense.  If I'm missing
> something or you have different opinion, please feel free to let me
> know.
>
>
> Patch History
> -------------
>
> Changes from v1
> (https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20201208094529.23266-1-sjpark@amazon.com/)
> - Keep xmas tree variable ordering (Jakub Kicinski)
> - Add more numbers (Eric Dumazet)
> - Use 'llist_for_each_entry_safe()' (Eric Dumazet)
>
> SeongJae Park (1):
>   net/ipv4/inet_fragment: Batch fqdir destroy works
>
>  include/net/inet_frag.h  |  2 +-
>  net/ipv4/inet_fragment.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++--------
>  2 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> --
> 2.17.1
>