linux-kernel - [PATCH v4 1/3] fs/file.c: remove sanity_check and add likely/unlikely in alloc

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]

Message-ID: <20240713023917.3967269-2-yu.ma@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2024 22:39:15 -0400
From: Yu Ma <yu.ma@...el.com>
To: viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
	brauner@...nel.org,
	jack@...e.cz,
	mjguzik@...il.com,
	edumazet@...gle.com
Cc: yu.ma@...el.com,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	pan.deng@...el.com,
	tianyou.li@...el.com,
	tim.c.chen@...el.com,
	tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com
Subject: [PATCH v4 1/3] fs/file.c: remove sanity_check and add likely/unlikely in alloc_fd()

alloc_fd() has a sanity check inside to make sure the struct file mapping to the
allocated fd is NULL. Remove this sanity check since it can be assured by
exisitng zero initilization and NULL set when recycling fd. Meanwhile, add
likely/unlikely and expand_file() call avoidance to reduce the work under
file_lock.

Reviewed-by: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Yu Ma <yu.ma@...el.com>
---
 fs/file.c | 33 ++++++++++++++-------------------
 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/file.c b/fs/file.c
index a3b72aa64f11..e1b9d6df7941 100644
--- a/fs/file.c
+++ b/fs/file.c
@@ -515,7 +515,7 @@ static int alloc_fd(unsigned start, unsigned end, unsigned flags)
 	if (fd < files->next_fd)
 		fd = files->next_fd;
 
-	if (fd < fdt->max_fds)
+	if (likely(fd < fdt->max_fds))
 		fd = find_next_fd(fdt, fd);
 
 	/*
@@ -523,19 +523,21 @@ static int alloc_fd(unsigned start, unsigned end, unsigned flags)
 	 * will limit the total number of files that can be opened.
 	 */
 	error = -EMFILE;
-	if (fd >= end)
+	if (unlikely(fd >= end))
 		goto out;
 
-	error = expand_files(files, fd);
-	if (error < 0)
-		goto out;
+	if (unlikely(fd >= fdt->max_fds)) {
+		error = expand_files(files, fd);
+		if (error < 0)
+			goto out;
 
-	/*
-	 * If we needed to expand the fs array we
-	 * might have blocked - try again.
-	 */
-	if (error)
-		goto repeat;
+		/*
+		 * If we needed to expand the fs array we
+		 * might have blocked - try again.
+		 */
+		if (error)
+			goto repeat;
+	}
 
 	if (start <= files->next_fd)
 		files->next_fd = fd + 1;
@@ -546,13 +548,6 @@ static int alloc_fd(unsigned start, unsigned end, unsigned flags)
 	else
 		__clear_close_on_exec(fd, fdt);
 	error = fd;
-#if 1
-	/* Sanity check */
-	if (rcu_access_pointer(fdt->fd[fd]) != NULL) {
-		printk(KERN_WARNING "alloc_fd: slot %d not NULL!\n", fd);
-		rcu_assign_pointer(fdt->fd[fd], NULL);
-	}
-#endif
 
 out:
 	spin_unlock(&files->file_lock);
@@ -618,7 +613,7 @@ void fd_install(unsigned int fd, struct file *file)
 		rcu_read_unlock_sched();
 		spin_lock(&files->file_lock);
 		fdt = files_fdtable(files);
-		BUG_ON(fdt->fd[fd] != NULL);
+		WARN_ON(fdt->fd[fd] != NULL);
 		rcu_assign_pointer(fdt->fd[fd], file);
 		spin_unlock(&files->file_lock);
 		return;
-- 
2.43.0