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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2021 14:51:44 +0900 From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org> To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org> Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>, Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] tools/lib/fs: Cache cgroupfs mount point On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 10:33 AM Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org> wrote: > > Hi Arnaldo, > > On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 8:51 PM Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo > <acme@...nel.org> wrote: > > > > Em Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 06:05:56PM +0900, Namhyung Kim escreveu: > > > Currently it parses the /proc file everytime it opens a file in the > > > cgroupfs. Save the last result to avoid it (assuming it won't be > > > changed between the accesses). > > > > Which is the most likely case, but can't we use something like inotify > > to detect that and bail out or warn the user? > > Hmm.. looks doable. Will check. So I've played with inotify a little bit, and it seems it needs to monitor changes on the file or the directory. I didn't get any notification from the /proc/mounts file even if I did some mount/umount. Instead, I could get IN_UNMOUNT when the cgroup filesystem was unmounted. But for the monitoring, we need to do one of a) select-like syscall to wait for the events, b) signal-driven IO notification or c) read the inotify file with non-block mode everytime. In a library code, I don't think we can do a) or b) since it can affect user program behaviors. Then we should go with c) but I think it's opposite to the purpose of this patch. :) As you said, I think mostly we don't care as the accesses will happen in a short period of time. But if you really care, maybe for the upcoming perf daemon changes, I think we can add an API to invalidate the cache or internal time-based invalidation logic (like remove it after 10 sec.). Thoughts? Thanks, Namhyung
Powered by blists - more mailing lists