linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] kernfs: proposed locking and concurrency improvement

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: <3e97846b52a46759c414bff855e49b07f0d908fc.camel@themaw.net>
Date:   Mon, 14 Dec 2020 21:30:19 +0800
From:   Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net>
To:     Fox Chen <foxhlchen@...il.com>
Cc:     akpm@...ux-foundation.org, dhowells@...hat.com,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        miklos@...redi.hu, ricklind@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
        sfr@...b.auug.org.au, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        viro@...iv.linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] kernfs: proposed locking and concurrency
 improvement

On Mon, 2020-12-14 at 14:14 +0800, Fox Chen wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 13, 2020 at 11:46 AM Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2020-12-11 at 10:17 +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2020-12-11 at 10:01 +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> > > > > For the patches, there is a mutex_lock in kn->attr_mutex, as
> > > > > Tejun
> > > > > mentioned here
> > > > > (
> > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/X8fe0cmu+aq1gi7O@mtj.duckdns.org/
> > > > > ),
> > > > > maybe a global
> > > > > rwsem for kn->iattr will be better??
> > > > 
> > > > I wasn't sure about that, IIRC a spin lock could be used around
> > > > the
> > > > initial check and checked again at the end which would probably
> > > > have
> > > > been much faster but much less conservative and a bit more ugly
> > > > so
> > > > I just went the conservative path since there was so much
> > > > change
> > > > already.
> > > 
> > > Sorry, I hadn't looked at Tejun's reply yet and TBH didn't
> > > remember
> > > it.
> > > 
> > > Based on what Tejun said it sounds like that needs work.
> > 
> > Those attribute handling patches were meant to allow taking the rw
> > sem read lock instead of the write lock for kernfs_refresh_inode()
> > updates, with the added locking to protect the inode attributes
> > update since it's called from the VFS both with and without the
> > inode lock.
> 
> Oh, understood. I was asking also because lock on kn->attr_mutex
> drags
> concurrent performance.
> 
> > Looking around it looks like kernfs_iattrs() is called from
> > multiple
> > places without a node database lock at all.
> > 
> > I'm thinking that, to keep my proposed change straight forward
> > and on topic, I should just leave kernfs_refresh_inode() taking
> > the node db write lock for now and consider the attributes handling
> > as a separate change. Once that's done we could reconsider what's
> > needed to use the node db read lock in kernfs_refresh_inode().
> 
> You meant taking write lock of kernfs_rwsem for
> kernfs_refresh_inode()??
> It may be a lot slower in my benchmark, let me test it.

Yes, but make sure the write lock of kernfs_rwsem is being taken
not the read lock.

That's a mistake I had initially?

Still, that attributes handling is, I think, sufficient to warrant
a separate change since it looks like it might need work, the kernfs
node db probably should be kept stable for those attribute updates
but equally the existence of an instantiated dentry might mitigate
the it.

Some people might just know whether it's ok or not but I would like
to check the callers to work out what's going on.

In any case it's academic if GCH isn't willing to consider the series
for review and possible merge.

Ian