Message-ID: <87le8ggg5b.fsf@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2024 08:37:20 -0800
From: Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@...el.com>
To: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
Cc: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>, hu1.chen@...el.com,
 miklos@...redi.hu, malini.bhandaru@...el.com, tim.c.chen@...el.com,
 mikko.ylinen@...el.com, lizhen.you@...el.com,
 linux-unionfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel
 <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>, Linus Torvalds
 <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, Seth
 Forshee <sforshee@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] HACK: overlayfs: Optimize overlay/restore creds

Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org> writes:

> On Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 06:33:59AM -0800, Vinicius Costa Gomes wrote:
>> Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com> writes:
>> 
>> > On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 11:57 PM Vinicius Costa Gomes
>> > <vinicius.gomes@...el.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org> writes:
>> >>
>> >> >> > Yes, the important thing is that an object cannot change
>> >> >> > its non_refcount property during its lifetime -
>> >> >>
>> >> >> ... which means that put_creds_ref() should assert that
>> >> >> there is only a single refcount - the one handed out by
>> >> >> prepare_creds_ref() before removing non_refcount or
>> >> >> directly freeing the cred object.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I must say that the semantics of making a non-refcounted copy
>> >> >> to an object whose lifetime is managed by the caller sounds a lot
>> >> >> less confusing to me.
>> >> >
>> >> > So can't we do an override_creds() variant that is effectively just:
>> >
>> > Yes, I think that we can....
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> > /* caller guarantees lifetime of @new */
>> >> > const struct cred *foo_override_cred(const struct cred *new)
>> >> > {
>> >> >       const struct cred *old = current->cred;
>> >> >       rcu_assign_pointer(current->cred, new);
>> >> >       return old;
>> >> > }
>> >> >
>> >> > /* caller guarantees lifetime of @old */
>> >> > void foo_revert_creds(const struct cred *old)
>> >> > {
>> >> >       const struct cred *override = current->cred;
>> >> >       rcu_assign_pointer(current->cred, old);
>> >> > }
>> >> >
>> >
>> > Even better(?), we can do this in the actual guard helpers to
>> > discourage use without a guard:
>> >
>> > struct override_cred {
>> >         struct cred *cred;
>> > };
>> >
>> > DEFINE_GUARD(override_cred, struct override_cred *,
>> >             override_cred_save(_T),
>> >             override_cred_restore(_T));
>> >
>> > ...
>> >
>> > void override_cred_save(struct override_cred *new)
>> > {
>> >         new->cred = rcu_replace_pointer(current->cred, new->cred, true);
>> > }
>> >
>> > void override_cred_restore(struct override_cred *old)
>> > {
>> >         rcu_assign_pointer(current->cred, old->cred);
>> > }
>> >
>> >> > Maybe I really fail to understand this problem or the proposed solution:
>> >> > the single reference that overlayfs keeps in ovl->creator_cred is tied
>> >> > to the lifetime of the overlayfs superblock, no? And anyone who needs a
>> >> > long term cred reference e.g, file->f_cred will take it's own reference
>> >> > anyway. So it should be safe to just keep that reference alive until
>> >> > overlayfs is unmounted, no? I'm sure it's something quite obvious why
>> >> > that doesn't work but I'm just not seeing it currently.
>> >>
>> >> My read of the code says that what you are proposing should work. (what
>> >> I am seeing is that in the "optimized" cases, the only practical effect
>> >> of override/revert is the rcu_assign_pointer() dance)
>> >>
>> >> I guess that the question becomes: Do we want this property (that the
>> >> 'cred' associated with a subperblock/similar is long lived and the
>> >> "inner" refcount can be omitted) to be encoded in the constructor? Or do
>> >> we want it to be "encoded" in a call by call basis?
>> >>
>> >
>> > Neither.
>> >
>> > Christian's proposal does not involve marking the cred object as
>> > long lived, which looks a much better idea to me.
>> >
>> 
>> In my mind, I am reading his suggestion as the flag "long lived
>> cred/lives long enough" is "in our brains" vs. what I proposed that the
>> flag was "in the object". The effect of the "flag" is the same: when to
>> use a lighter version (no refcount) of override/revert.
>> 
>> What I was thinking was more more under the covers, implicit. And I can
>> see the advantages of having them more explicit.
>> 
>> > The performance issues you observed are (probably) due to get/put
>> > of cred refcount in the helpers {override,revert}_creds().
>> >
>> 
>> Yes, they are. Sorry that it was lost in the context. The original
>> report is here:
>> 
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231018074553.41333-1-hu1.chen@intel.com/
>> 
>> > Christian suggested lightweight variants of {override,revert}_creds()
>> > that do not change refcount. Combining those with a guard and
>> > I don't see what can go wrong (TM).
>> >
>> > If you try this out and post a patch, please be sure to include the
>> > motivation for the patch along with performance numbers in the
>> > commit message, even if only posting an RFC patch.
>> >
>> 
>> Of course.
>> 
>> And to be sure, I will go with Christian's suggestion, it looks neat,
>> and having a lighter version of references is a more common idiom.
>
> Did this ever go anywhere?

Oh, yes! Had to do a few tweaks to what you suggested, but it's working
fine.

Just collecting some fresh numbers for the cover letter. Will propose
the v2 of the RFC soon.


Cheers,
-- 
Vinicius

Powered by blists - more mailing lists