linux-kernel - Re: [RESEND PATCH] kernfs: Avoid re-adding kernfs_node into kernfs_notify

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: <YsSD4k0o6PPYpMBe@slm.duckdns.org>
Date:   Tue, 5 Jul 2022 08:33:06 -1000
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:     Imran Khan <imran.f.khan@...cle.com>
Cc:     gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
        m.szyprowski@...sung.com, nathan@...nel.org, michael@...le.cc,
        robh@...nel.org, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, guillaume.tucker@...labora.com,
        pmladek@...e.com
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH] kernfs: Avoid re-adding kernfs_node into
 kernfs_notify_list.

Hello,

On Sun, Jul 03, 2022 at 09:09:05PM +1000, Imran Khan wrote:
> Can we use kernfs_notify_lock like below snippet to serialize producers
> (kernfs_notify):
> 
> spin_lock_irqsave(&kernfs_notify_lock, flags);
> if (kn->attr.notify_next.next != NULL) {
> 	kernfs_get(kn);
> 	llist_add(&kn->attr.notify_next, &kernfs_notify_list);
> 	schedule_work(&kernfs_notify_work);
> }
> spin_unlock_irqsave(&kernfs_notify_lock, flags);

But then what's the point of using llist?

> As per following comments at the beginning of llist.h
> 
>  * Cases where locking is not needed:
>  * If there are multiple producers and multiple consumers, llist_add can be
>  * used in producers and llist_del_all can be used in consumers simultaneously
>  * without locking. Also a single consumer can use llist_del_first while
>  * multiple producers simultaneously use llist_add, without any locking.
> 
> Multiple producers and single consumer can work in parallel but as in our case
> addition is dependent on kn->attr.notify_next.next != NULL, we may keep the
> checking and list addition under kernfs_notify_lock and for consumer just lock
> free->next = NULL under kernfs_notify_lock.

It supports multiple producers in the sense that multiple producers can try
to add their own llist_nodes concurrently. It doesn't support multiple
producers trying to add the same llist_node whether that depends on NULL
check or not.

> Having said this, I am okay with reverting the llist change as well, because
> anyways it is not helping in the contentions that we are chasing here, but I
> thought of sharing the above idea to see if it is reliable and better than
> revert option.

The original conversion is broken and the right thing to do, for now, is
reverting it.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun