linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] ipc/msg: mitigate the lock contention with percpu counter

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]

Date:   Thu, 8 Sep 2022 09:15:37 -0700
From:   Dennis Zhou <dennis@...nel.org>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     "Sun, Jiebin" <jiebin.sun@...el.com>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>, vasily.averin@...ux.dev,
        shakeelb@...gle.com, tj@...nel.org, cl@...ux.com,
        ebiederm@...ssion.com, legion@...nel.org, manfred@...orfullife.com,
        alexander.mikhalitsyn@...tuozzo.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tim.c.chen@...el.com,
        feng.tang@...el.com, ying.huang@...el.com, tianyou.li@...el.com,
        wangyang.guo@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] ipc/msg: mitigate the lock contention with percpu
 counter

Hello,

On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 08:38:59AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Sep 2022 16:25:47 +0800 "Sun, Jiebin" <jiebin.sun@...el.com> wrote:
> 
> > In our case, if the local 
> > percpu counter is near to INT_MAX and there comes a big msgsz, the 
> > overflow issue could happen.
> 
> percpu_counter_add_batch() handles this - your big message
> won't overflow an s64.
> 
> 
> Lookng at percpu_counter_add_batch(), is this tweak right?
> 
> - don't need to update *fbc->counters inside the lock
> - that __this_cpu_sub() is an obscure way of zeroing the thing
> 
> --- a/lib/percpu_counter.c~a
> +++ a/lib/percpu_counter.c
> @@ -89,8 +89,8 @@ void percpu_counter_add_batch(struct per
>  		unsigned long flags;
>  		raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&fbc->lock, flags);
>  		fbc->count += count;
> -		__this_cpu_sub(*fbc->counters, count - amount);
>  		raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&fbc->lock, flags);
> +		__this_cpu_write(*fbc->counters, 0);

I don't think this is irq safe. It'd be best to leave it inside the
spinlock as then we can use __this_cpu_write() to 0 in there.

>  	} else {
>  		this_cpu_add(*fbc->counters, amount);
>  	}
> _
> 

Thanks,
Dennis