linux-kernel - Re: [HELP] FUSE writeback performance bottleneck

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: Tue, 4 Jun 2024 09:27:46 +0200
From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To: Jingbo Xu <jefflexu@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc: Bernd Schubert <bernd.schubert@...tmail.fm>, 
	"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>, 
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, lege.wang@...uarmicro.com
Subject: Re: [HELP] FUSE writeback performance bottleneck

On Tue, 4 Jun 2024 at 03:57, Jingbo Xu <jefflexu@...ux.alibaba.com> wrote:

> IIUC, there are two sources that may cause deadlock:
> 1) the fuse server needs memory allocation when processing FUSE_WRITE
> requests, which in turn triggers direct memory reclaim, and FUSE
> writeback then - deadlock here

Yep, see the folio_wait_writeback() call deep in the guts of direct
reclaim, which sleeps until the PG_writeback flag is cleared.  If that
happens to be triggered by the writeback in question, then that's a
deadlock.

> 2) a process that trigfgers direct memory reclaim or calls sync(2) may
> hang there forever, if the fuse server is buggyly or malicious and thus
> hang there when processing FUSE_WRITE requests

Ah, yes, sync(2) is also an interesting case.   We don't want unpriv
fuse servers to be able to block sync(2), which means that sync(2)
won't actually guarantee a synchronization of fuse's dirty pages.  I
don't think there's even a theoretical solution to that, but
apparently nobody cares...

Thanks,
Mikos

>
> Thus the temp page design was introduced to avoid the above potential
> issues.
>
> I think case 1 may be fixed (if any), but I don't know how case 2 can be
> avoided as any one could run a fuse server in unprivileged mode.  Or if
> case 2 really matters?  Please correct me if I miss something.
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Jingbo