linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] rxrpc_find_service_conn_rcu: use read_seqbegin() rather than read_seqbegin_or

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: <20231101231701.GH32034@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 2 Nov 2023 00:17:02 +0100
From:   Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:     Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@...istor.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>,
        linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rxrpc_find_service_conn_rcu: use read_seqbegin() rather
 than read_seqbegin_or_lock()

On 11/01, Al Viro wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 01, 2023 at 10:52:15PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> > > Why would you want to force that "switch to locked on the second pass" policy
> > > on every possible caller?
> >
> > Because this is what (I think) read_seqbegin_or_lock() is supposed to do.
> > It should take the lock for writing if the lockless access failed. At least
> > according to the documentation.
>
> Not really - it's literally seqbegin or lock, depending upon what the caller
> tells it...

OK, I won't argue right now. But again, this patch doesn't change the current
behaviour. Exactly because the caller does NOT tell read_seqbegin_or_lock() that
it wants "or lock" on the 2nd pass.

> Take a look at d_walk() and try to shoehorn that into your variant.  Especially
> the D_WALK_NORETRY handling...

I am already sleeping, quite possibly I am wrong. But it seems that if we change
done_seqretry() then d_walk() needs something like

	--- a/fs/dcache.c
	+++ b/fs/dcache.c
	@@ -1420,7 +1420,7 @@ static void d_walk(struct dentry *parent, void *data,
			spin_lock(&this_parent->d_lock);
	 
			/* might go back up the wrong parent if we have had a rename. */
	-		if (need_seqretry(&rename_lock, seq))
	+		if (need_seqretry(&rename_lock, &seq))
				goto rename_retry;
			/* go into the first sibling still alive */
			do {
	@@ -1432,22 +1432,20 @@ static void d_walk(struct dentry *parent, void *data,
			rcu_read_unlock();
			goto resume;
		}
	-	if (need_seqretry(&rename_lock, seq))
	+	if (need_seqretry(&rename_lock, &seq))
			goto rename_retry;
		rcu_read_unlock();
	 
	 out_unlock:
		spin_unlock(&this_parent->d_lock);
	-	done_seqretry(&rename_lock, seq);
	+	done_seqretry(&rename_lock, &seq);
		return;
	 
	 rename_retry:
		spin_unlock(&this_parent->d_lock);
		rcu_read_unlock();
	-	BUG_ON(seq & 1);
		if (!retry)
			return;
	-	seq = 1;
		goto again;
	 }


But again, again, this is off-topic and needs another discussion. Right now I am just
trying to audit the users of read_seqbegin_or_lock/need_seqretry and change those who
use them incorrectly.

Oleg.