linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] uprobes: reduce contention on uprobes

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 Mar 2024 16:14:18 -0700
From: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
To: Jonthan Haslam <jonathan.haslam@...il.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org, andrii@...nel.org, 
	bpf@...r.kernel.org, rostedt@...dmis.org, mhiramat@...nel.org, 
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, 
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>, 
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, 
	Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, 
	Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>, Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>, 
	linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] uprobes: reduce contention on uprobes_tree access

On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 12:12 PM Jonthan Haslam
<jonathan.haslam@...il.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Ingo,
>
> > > This change has been tested against production workloads that exhibit
> > > significant contention on the spinlock and an almost order of magnitude
> > > reduction for mean uprobe execution time is observed (28 -> 3.5 microsecs).
> >
> > Have you considered/measured per-CPU RW semaphores?
>
> No I hadn't but thanks hugely for suggesting it! In initial measurements
> it seems to be between 20-100% faster than the RW spinlocks! Apologies for
> all the exclamation marks but I'm very excited. I'll do some more testing
> tomorrow but so far it's looking very good.
>

Documentation ([0]) says that locking for writing calls
synchronize_rcu(), is that right? If that's true, attaching multiple
uprobes (including just attaching a single BPF multi-uprobe) will take
a really long time. We need to confirm we are not significantly
regressing this. And if we do, we need to take measures in the BPF
multi-uprobe attachment code path to make sure that a single
multi-uprobe attachment is still fast.

If my worries above turn out to be true, it still feels like a first
good step should be landing this patch as is (and get it backported to
older kernels), and then have percpu rw-semaphore as a final (and a
bit more invasive) solution (it's RCU-based, so feels like a good
primitive to settle on), making sure to not regress multi-uprobes
(we'll probably will need some batched API for multiple uprobes).

Thoughts?

  [0] https://docs.kernel.org/locking/percpu-rw-semaphore.html

> Thanks again for the input.
>
> Jon.