linux-kernel - Re: [apparmor] use per-cpu refcounts for apparmor labels?

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, 25 Sep 2023 16:49:25 -0700
From:   Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@...el.com>
To:     Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@...il.com>,
        John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>
Cc:     linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, apparmor@...ts.ubuntu.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [apparmor] use per-cpu refcounts for apparmor labels?

Hi Mateusz,

Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@...il.com> writes:

> I'm sanity-checking perf in various microbenchmarks and I found
> apparmor to be the main bottleneck in some of them.
>
> For example: will-it-scale open1_processes -t 16, top of the profile:
>   20.17%  [kernel]                   [k] apparmor_file_alloc_security
>   20.08%  [kernel]                   [k] apparmor_file_open
>   20.05%  [kernel]                   [k] apparmor_file_free_security
>   18.39%  [kernel]                   [k] apparmor_current_getsecid_subj
> [snip]
>
> This serializes on refing/unrefing apparmor objs, sounds like a great
> candidate for per-cpu refcounting instead (I'm assuming they are
> expected to be long-lived).
>
> I would hack it up myself, but I failed to find a clear spot to switch
> back from per-cpu to centalized operation and don't want to put
> serious effort into it.
>
> Can you sort this out?

I was looking at this same workload, and proposed a patch[1] some time
ago, see if it helps:

https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/apparmor/2023-August/012914.html

But my idea was different, in many cases, we are looking at the label
associated with the current task, and there's no need to take the
refcount.

>
> Thanks,
> -- 
> Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik gmail.com>
>

Cheers,
-- 
Vinicius