linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 8/8] dm-verity: Convert from tasklet to BH workqueue

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: Wed, 31 Jan 2024 23:02:43 +0100 (CET)
From: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
cc: torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
    dm-devel@...ts.linux.dev, msnitzer@...hat.com, ignat@...udflare.com, 
    damien.lemoal@....com, bob.liu@...cle.com, houtao1@...wei.com, 
    peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, 
    allen.lkml@...il.com, kernel-team@...a.com, 
    Alasdair Kergon <agk@...hat.com>, Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] dm-verity: Convert from tasklet to BH workqueue



On Wed, 31 Jan 2024, Tejun Heo wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 10:19:07PM +0100, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> > > @@ -83,7 +83,7 @@ struct dm_verity_io {
> > >  	struct bvec_iter iter;
> > >  
> > >  	struct work_struct work;
> > > -	struct tasklet_struct tasklet;
> > > +	struct work_struct bh_work;
> > >  
> > >  	/*
> > >  	 * Three variably-size fields follow this struct:
> > 
> > Do we really need two separate work_structs here? They are never submitted 
> > concurrently, so I think that one would be enough. Or, am I missing 
> > something?
> 
> I don't know, so just did the dumb thing. If the caller always guarantees
> that the work items are never queued at the same time, reusing is fine.
> However, the followings might be useful to keep on mind:
> 
> - work_struct is pretty small - 4 pointers.
> 
> - INIT_WORK() on a queued work item isn't gonna be pretty.
> 
> - Flushing and no-concurrent-execution guarantee are broken on INIT_WORK().
>   e.g. If you queue_work(), INIT_WORK(), flush_work(), the flush isn't
>   actually going to wait for the work item to finish. Also, if you do
>   queue_work(), INIT_WORK(), queue_work(), the two queued work item
>   instances may end up running concurrently.
> 
> Muxing a single work item carries more risks of subtle bugs, but in some
> cases, the way it's used is clear (e.g. sequential chaining) and that's
> fine.

The code doesn't call INIT_WORK() on a queued work item and it doesn't 
flush the workqueue (it destroys it only in a situation when there are no 
work items running) so I think it's safe to use just one work_struct.

Mikulas