linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] loop: Charge i/o to mem and blk cg

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: <YNw8kRpT6R2emuhI@blackbook>
Date:   Wed, 30 Jun 2021 11:42:41 +0200
From:   Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>
To:     Dan Schatzberg <schatzberg.dan@...il.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "open list:BLOCK LAYER" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:CONTROL GROUP (CGROUP)" <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:MEMORY MANAGEMENT" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] loop: Charge i/o to mem and blk cg

On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 10:03:33AM -0400, Dan Schatzberg <schatzberg.dan@...il.com> wrote:
> Hmm, perhaps I'm not understanding how the reference counting works,
> but my understanding is that we enter loop_queue_rq with presumably
> some code earlier holding a reference to the blkcg, we only need to
> acquire a reference sometime before returning from loop_queue_rq. The
> "window" between loop_queue_rq and loop_queue_work is all
> straight-line code so there's no possibility for the earlier code to
> get control back and drop the reference.

I don't say the current implementation is wrong, it just looked
suspicious to me when the css address is copied without taking the
reference.
The straight path is clear, I'm not sure about later invocations through
loop_workfn where the blkcg_css is accessed via the cmd->blkcg_css.

> Where would you suggest putting such a comment?

This is how I understand it:

--- a/drivers/block/loop.c
+++ b/drivers/block/loop.c
@@ -996,6 +996,7 @@ static void loop_queue_work(struct loop_device *lo, struct loop_cmd *cmd)
        rb_insert_color(&worker->rb_node, &lo->worker_tree);
 queue_work:
        if (worker) {
+               WARN_ON_ONCE(worker->blkcg_css != cmd->blkcg_css);
                /*
                 * We need to remove from the idle list here while
                 * holding the lock so that the idle timer doesn't
@@ -2106,6 +2107,8 @@ static blk_status_t loop_queue_rq(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx,
        cmd->memcg_css = NULL;
 #ifdef CONFIG_BLK_CGROUP
        if (rq->bio && rq->bio->bi_blkg) {
+               /* reference to blkcg_css will be held by loop_worker (outlives
+                * cmd) or it is the eternal root css */
                cmd->blkcg_css = &bio_blkcg(rq->bio)->css;
 #ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG
                cmd->memcg_css =

(On further thoughts, maybe the blkcg_css reference isn't needed even in
the loop_worker if it can be reasoned that blkcg_css won't go away while
there's an outstanding rq.)

HTH,
Michal

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)