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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2022 10:00:20 -0400 From: Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com> To: Petr Pavlu <petr.pavlu@...e.com>, Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org> Cc: pmladek@...e.com, linux-modules@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] module: Merge same-name module load requests On 10/24/22 08:37, Petr Pavlu wrote: > On 10/18/22 21:53, Prarit Bhargava wrote: >> Quoting from the original thread, >> >>> >>> Motivation for this patch is to fix an issue observed on larger machines with >>> many CPUs where it can take a significant amount of time during boot to run >>> systemd-udev-trigger.service. An x86-64 system can have already intel_pstate >>> active but as its CPUs can match also acpi_cpufreq and pcc_cpufreq, udev will >>> attempt to load these modules too. The operation will eventually fail in the >>> init function of a respective module where it gets recognized that another >>> cpufreq driver is already loaded and -EEXIST is returned. However, one uevent >>> is triggered for each CPU and so multiple loads of these modules will be >>> present. The current code then processes all such loads individually and >>> serializes them with the barrier in add_unformed_module(). >>> >> >> The way to solve this is not in the module loading code, but in the udev >> code by adding a new event or in the userspace which handles the loading >> events. >> >> Option 1) >> >> Write/modify a udev rule to to use a flock userspace file lock to >> prevent repeated loading. The problem with this is that it is still >> racy and still consumes CPU time repeated load the ELF header and, >> depending on the system (ie a large number of cpus) would still cause a >> boot delay. This would be better than what we have and is worth looking >> at as a simple solution. I'd like to see boot times with this change, >> and I'll try to come up with a measurement on a large CPU system. > > It is not immediately clear to me how this can be done as a udev rule. You > mention that you'll try to test this on a large CPU system. Does it mean that > you have a prototype implemented already? If yes, could you please share it? > Hi Petr, Sorry, I haven't had a chance to actually test this out but I see this problem with the acpi_cpufreq and other multiple-cpu drivers which load once per logical cpu. I was thinking of adding a udev rule like: ACTION!="add", GOTO="acpi_cpufreq_end" # I may have to add CPU modaliases here to get this to work correctly ENV{MODALIAS}=="acpi:ACPI0007:", GOTO="acpi_cpufreq_start" GOTO="acpi_cpufreq_start" GOTO="acpi_cpufreq_end" LABEL="acpi_cpufreq_start" ENV{DELAY_MODALIAS}="$env{MODALIAS}" ENV{MODALIAS}="" PROGRAM="/bin/sh -c flock -n /tmp/delay_acpi_cpufreq sleep 2'", RESULT=="", RUN{builtin}+="kmod load $env{DELAY_MODALIAS}" LABEL="acpi_cpufreq_end" > My reading is that one would need to update the "MODALIAS" rule in > 80-drivers.rules [1] to do this locking. However, that just collects > 'kmod load' (builtin) for udev to execute after all rules are processed. It > would then be required to synchronize udev workers to prevent repeated > loading? > Yes, that would be the case. >> Option 2) >> >> Create a new udev action, "add_once" to indicate to userspace that the >> module only needs to be loaded one time, and to ignore further load >> requests. This is a bit tricky as both kernel space and userspace would >> have be modified. The udev rule would end up looking very similar to >> what we now. >> >> The benefit of option 2 is that driver writers themselves can choose >> which drivers should issue "add_once" instead of add. Drivers that are >> known to run on all devices at once would call "add_once" to only issue >> a single load. > > On the device event side, I more wonder if it would be possible to avoid tying > up cpufreq and edac modules to individual CPU devices. Maybe their loading > could be attached to some platform device, even if it means introducing an > auxiliary device for this purpose? I need to look a bit more into this idea. That's an interesting idea and something I had not considered. Creating a virtual device and loading against that device would be much better (easier?) of a solution. P. > > [1] https://github.com/systemd/systemd/blob/4856f63846fc794711e1b8ec970e4c56494cd320/rules.d/80-drivers.rules > > Thanks, > Petr >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists