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]

Message-ID: <c6379a39-42f2-b3f9-c835-bbebe516ba3a@canonical.com>
Date:   Mon, 25 Sep 2023 23:21:26 -0700
From:   John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>
To:     Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@...el.com>,
        Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@...il.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?

On 9/25/23 16:49, Vinicius Costa Gomes wrote:
> 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 will add looking into it on the todo list. Its going to have to come
after some other major cleanups land, and I am not sure we can make
the semantic work well for some of these. For other we might get away
with switching to a critical section like Vinicius's patch has done
for apparmor_current_getsecid_subj.

> 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.
> 

yes, and thanks for that.

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