linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 02/21] cachefiles: notify user daemon when looking up cookie

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: <62301f0e-8623-80ac-b351-a1b475a7004c@linux.alibaba.com>
Date:   Thu, 21 Apr 2022 22:47:25 +0800
From:   JeffleXu <jefflexu@...ux.alibaba.com>
To:     David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-cachefs@...hat.com, xiang@...nel.org, chao@...nel.org,
        linux-erofs@...ts.ozlabs.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, willy@...radead.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, joseph.qi@...ux.alibaba.com,
        bo.liu@...ux.alibaba.com, tao.peng@...ux.alibaba.com,
        gerry@...ux.alibaba.com, eguan@...ux.alibaba.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, luodaowen.backend@...edance.com,
        tianzichen@...ishou.com, fannaihao@...du.com,
        zhangjiachen.jaycee@...edance.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 02/21] cachefiles: notify user daemon when looking up
 cookie

Hi David,

Thanks for reviewing :)


On 4/21/22 9:57 PM, David Howells wrote:
> Jeffle Xu <jefflexu@...ux.alibaba.com> wrote:
> 
>> +	help
>> +	  This permits on-demand read mode of cachefiles.  In this mode, when
>> +	  cache miss, the cachefiles backend instead of netfs, is responsible
>> +	  for fetching data, e.g. through user daemon.
> 
> How about:
> 
> 	help
> 	  This permits userspace to enable the cachefiles on-demand read mode.
> 	  In this mode, when a cache miss occurs, responsibility for fetching
> 	  the data lies with the cachefiles backend instead of with the netfs
> 	  and is delegated to userspace.
> 
>> +	/*
>> +	 * 1) Cache has been marked as dead state, and then 2) flush all
>> +	 * pending requests in @reqs xarray. The barrier inside set_bit()
>> +	 * will ensure that above two ops won't be reordered.
>> +	 */
> 
> What set_bit()?  

"set_bit(CACHEFILES_DEAD, &cache->flags);" in cachefiles_daemon_release()

> What "above two ops"? 

The two operations I mentioned in the comment:
1) Cache has been marked as dead state, and then
2) flush all pending requests in @reqs xarray.


> And that's not how barriers work; they


> provide a partial ordering relative to another pair of barriered ops.
> 
> Also, set_bit() can't be relied upon to imply a barrier - see
> Documentation/memory-barriers.txt.

Yeah, it seems that set_bit() doesn't imply with a memory barrier,
though the x86 implementation (arch/x86/boot/bitops.h) indeed implies a
barrier, which may misleads me. Thanks for pointing it out. Then maybe a
full barrier is needed here before flushing the @reqs xarray.

> 
>> +	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_CACHEFILES_ONDEMAND) &&
>> +	    test_bit(CACHEFILES_ONDEMAND_MODE, &cache->flags)) {
> 
> It might be worth abstracting this into an inline function in internal.h:
> 
> 	static inline bool cachefiles_in_ondemand_mode(cache)
> 	{
> 		return IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_CACHEFILES_ONDEMAND) &&
> 			test_bit(CACHEFILES_ONDEMAND_MODE, &cache->flags)
> 	}

Okay, will be fixed in the next version.

> 
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_CACHEFILES_ONDEMAND
> 
> This looks like it ought to be superfluous, given the preceding test - though
> I can see why you need it:

Sorry I can't see the context. But I guess you are referring to the
snippet of cachefiles_daemon_poll()?

```
+	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_CACHEFILES_ONDEMAND) &&
+	    test_bit(CACHEFILES_ONDEMAND_MODE, &cache->flags)) {
+#ifdef CONFIG_CACHEFILES_ONDEMAND
+		if (!xa_empty(&cache->reqs))
+			mask |= EPOLLIN;
```

Yes the implementation here is indeed not elegant enough. As you
described below, if @reqs is defined non-conditionally in struct
cachefiles_cache, then the superfluous magic here is not needed then.

> 
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_CACHEFILES_ONDEMAND
>> +	struct xarray			reqs;		/* xarray of pending on-demand requests */
>> +	struct xarray			ondemand_ids;	/* xarray for ondemand_id allocation */
>> +	u32				ondemand_id_next;
>> +#endif
> 
> I'm tempted to say that you should just make them non-conditional.  It's not
> like there's likely to be more than one or two cachefiles_cache structs on a
> system.

Okay, sounds reasonable.


-- 
Thanks,
Jeffle