linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/14] replace call_rcu by kfree_rcu for simple kmem_cache

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, 17 Jun 2024 15:50:56 +0200
From: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>
To: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
Cc: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
	Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@...ia.fr>, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
	kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, bridge@...ts.linux.dev,
	linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
	kvm@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
	"Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@...ux.ibm.com>,
	Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
	Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	wireguard@...ts.zx2c4.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	ecryptfs@...r.kernel.org, Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>,
	Olga Kornievskaia <kolga@...app.com>, Dai Ngo <Dai.Ngo@...cle.com>,
	Tom Talpey <tom@...pey.com>, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-can@...r.kernel.org, Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
	netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, coreteam@...filter.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/14] replace call_rcu by kfree_rcu for simple
 kmem_cache_free callback

On Fri, Jun 14, 2024 at 09:33:45PM +0200, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2024 at 02:35:33PM +0200, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > +	/* Should a destroy process be deferred? */
> > +	if (s->flags & SLAB_DEFER_DESTROY) {
> > +		list_move_tail(&s->list, &slab_caches_defer_destroy);
> > +		schedule_delayed_work(&slab_caches_defer_destroy_work, HZ);
> > +		goto out_unlock;
> > +	}
> 
> Wouldn't it be smoother to have the actual kmem_cache_free() function
> check to see if it's been marked for destruction and the refcount is
> zero, rather than polling every one second? I mentioned this approach
> in: https://lore.kernel.org/all/Zmo9-YGraiCj5-MI@zx2c4.com/ -
> 
>     I wonder if the right fix to this would be adding a `should_destroy`
>     boolean to kmem_cache, which kmem_cache_destroy() sets to true. And
>     then right after it checks `if (number_of_allocations == 0)
>     actually_destroy()`, and likewise on each kmem_cache_free(), it
>     could check `if (should_destroy && number_of_allocations == 0)
>     actually_destroy()`. 
> 
I do not find pooling as bad way we can go with. But your proposal
sounds reasonable to me also. We can combine both "prototypes" to
one and offer.

Can you post a prototype here?

Thanks!

--
Uladzislau Rezki