linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] blk-iocost: add refcounting for iocg

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: <c63ee2ad-23d5-3be0-c731-28494398b391@huaweicloud.com>
Date:   Thu, 5 Jan 2023 09:14:07 +0800
From:   Yu Kuai <yukuai1@...weicloud.com>
To:     Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Yu Kuai <yukuai1@...weicloud.com>
Cc:     hch@...radead.org, josef@...icpanda.com, axboe@...nel.dk,
        cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, yi.zhang@...wei.com,
        "yukuai (C)" <yukuai3@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] blk-iocost: add refcounting for iocg

Hi,

在 2023/01/05 5:44, Tejun Heo 写道:
> On Tue, Dec 27, 2022 at 08:55:01PM +0800, Yu Kuai wrote:
>> From: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@...wei.com>
>>
>> iocost requires that child iocg must exit before parent iocg, otherwise
>> kernel might crash in ioc_timer_fn(). However, currently iocg is exited
>> in pd_free_fn(), which can't guarantee such order:
>>
>> 1) remove cgroup can concurrent with deactivate policy;
>> 2) blkg_free() triggered by remove cgroup is asynchronously, remove
>> child cgroup can concurrent with remove parent cgroup;
>>
>> Fix the problem by add refcounting for iocg, and child iocg will grab
>> reference of parent iocg, so that parent iocg will wait for all child
>> iocg to be exited.
> 
> Wouldn't it be better to do this refcnting in the blk-cgroup core code
> rather than in blk-iocost?
> 

The problem is that I can't find a proper way to fix the competition
that pd_free_fn() can be called from different context:

1) from blkg_free() that is called asynchronously from removing cgroup;
2) from blkcg_deactivate_policy() that is called from removing device;

1) is related to blkg, while 2) is not, hence refcnting from blkg can't
fix the problem. refcnting from blkcg_policy_data should be ok, but I
see that bfq already has the similar refcnting, while other policy
doesn't require such refcnting.

Any suggestions?

Thanks,
Kuai
> Thanks.
>