linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 39/41] kernel/fork: throttle call_rcu() calls in vm_area

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:   Mon, 23 Jan 2023 21:00:23 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc:     Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
        "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, michel@...pinasse.org,
        jglisse@...gle.com, vbabka@...e.cz, hannes@...xchg.org,
        mgorman@...hsingularity.net, dave@...olabs.net,
        peterz@...radead.org, ldufour@...ux.ibm.com,
        laurent.dufour@...ibm.com, paulmck@...nel.org, luto@...nel.org,
        songliubraving@...com, peterx@...hat.com, david@...hat.com,
        dhowells@...hat.com, hughd@...gle.com, bigeasy@...utronix.de,
        kent.overstreet@...ux.dev, punit.agrawal@...edance.com,
        lstoakes@...il.com, peterjung1337@...il.com, rientjes@...gle.com,
        axelrasmussen@...gle.com, joelaf@...gle.com, minchan@...gle.com,
        jannh@...gle.com, shakeelb@...gle.com, tatashin@...gle.com,
        edumazet@...gle.com, gthelen@...gle.com, gurua@...gle.com,
        arjunroy@...gle.com, soheil@...gle.com, hughlynch@...gle.com,
        leewalsh@...gle.com, posk@...gle.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 39/41] kernel/fork: throttle call_rcu() calls in
 vm_area_free

On Mon 23-01-23 19:30:43, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 08:18:37PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Mon 23-01-23 18:23:08, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 09:46:20AM -0800, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > Yes, batching the vmas into a list and draining it in remove_mt() and
> > > > exit_mmap() as you suggested makes sense to me and is quite simple.
> > > > Let's do that if nobody has objections.
> > > 
> > > I object.  We *know* nobody has a reference to any of the VMAs because
> > > you have to have a refcount on the mm before you can get a reference
> > > to a VMA.  If Michal is saying that somebody could do:
> > > 
> > > 	mmget(mm);
> > > 	vma = find_vma(mm);
> > > 	lock_vma(vma);
> > > 	mmput(mm);
> > > 	vma->a = b;
> > > 	unlock_vma(mm, vma);
> > > 
> > > then that's something we'd catch in review -- you obviously can't use
> > > the mm after you've dropped your reference to it.
> > 
> > I am not claiming this is possible now. I do not think we want to have
> > something like that in the future either but that is really hard to
> > envision. I am claiming that it is subtle and potentially error prone to
> > have two different ways of mass vma freeing wrt. locking. Also, don't we
> > have a very similar situation during last munmaps?
> 
> We shouldn't have two ways of mass VMA freeing.  Nobody's suggesting that.
> There are two cases; there's munmap(), which typically frees a single
> VMA (yes, theoretically, you can free hundreds of VMAs with a single
> call which spans multiple VMAs, but in practice that doesn't happen),
> and there's exit_mmap() which happens on exec() and exit().

This requires special casing remove_vma for those two different paths
(exit_mmap and remove_mt).  If you ask me that sounds like a suboptimal
code to even not handle potential large munmap which might very well be
a rare thing as you say. But haven't we learned that sooner or later we
will find out there is somebody that cares afterall? Anyway, this is not
something I care about all that much. It is just weird to special case
exit_mmap, if you ask me. Up to Suren to decide which way he wants to
go. I just really didn't like the initial implementation of batching
based on a completely arbitrary batch limit and lazy freeing.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs