[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f2e282ae3c502561d8ae302f535d969250dd967e@linux.dev>
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2024 14:54:46 +0000
From: jeff.xie@...ux.dev
To: "Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, xiehuan09@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] genirq: procfs: Make smp_affinity read-only for
interrupts marked with IRQD_AFFINITY_MANAGED flag
August 24, 2024 at 3:16 AM, "Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
Hi tglx,
Thank you for your very patient review, I’ve learned a lot from it.
>
> On Tue, Aug 20 2024 at 10:09, Jeff Xie wrote:
>
> >
> > Currently, due to the interrupt subsystem introduced this commit 9c2555835bb3
> >
> > ("genirq: Introduce IRQD_AFFINITY_MANAGED flag"),
> >
>
> This is not really a proper sentence.
Thanks for pointing this out, I see.
The introduced IRQD_AFFINITY_MANAGED is not the reason, I will delete the description.
>
> >
> > an error is reported when a
> >
> > system administrator modifies the smp_affinity for the virtio_blk driver.
> >
> > For example:
> >
> > jeff-labs:/proc/irq/26 # echo 2 > ./smp_affinity
> >
> > -bash: echo: write error: Input/output error
> >
>
> That should obviously return -EPERM for managed interrupts.'
Got it, I will fix it.
>
> >
> > However, checking the permissions of smp_affinity/smp_affinity_list shows that
> >
> > they are set to rw. System administrators are strongly complaining about this issue.
> >
>
> System administrators complain strongly about a lot of things. Such
>
> complaints are not necessarily a technical reason to change the code.
>
> A proper reason is to argue, that the kernel already knows at the time
>
> of interrupt allocation that the affinity cannot be controlled by
>
> userspace and therefore creating the file with write permissions is
>
> wrong.
Thanks, I will use the description.
>
> >
> > jeff-labs:/proc/irq/26 # ls -l
> >
> > total 0
> >
> > -r--r--r-- 1 root root 0 Aug 20 01:32 affinity_hint
> >
> > -r--r--r-- 1 root root 0 Aug 20 01:32 effective_affinity
> >
> > -r--r--r-- 1 root root 0 Aug 20 01:32 effective_affinity_list
> >
> > -r--r--r-- 1 root root 0 Aug 20 01:32 node
> >
> > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 Aug 20 01:32 smp_affinity
> >
> > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 Aug 20 01:32 smp_affinity_list
> >
> > -r--r--r-- 1 root root 0 Aug 20 01:32 spurious
> >
> > dr-xr-xr-x 2 root root 0 Aug 20 01:32 virtio3-req.0
> >
>
> We can see that from the code, no?
Yes, we can see that from the code, I will delete it.
>
> >
> > Therefore, the permissions of smp_affinity/smp_affinity_list should be changed to read-only.
> >
>
> Should? Tell what the solution is:
>
> Therefore set the file permissions to read-only for such interrupts.
Thanks, That's indeed a better description.
>
> And please format you change log so that it has linebreaks around 75
>
> characters.
Thanks for you reminder, I will change it.
>
> >
> > #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> >
> > /* create /proc/irq/<irq>/smp_affinity */
> >
> > - proc_create_data("smp_affinity", 0644, desc->dir,
> >
> > + if (unlikely(irqd_affinity_is_managed(&desc->irq_data)))
> >
>
> This unlikely is a pointless exercise as this is not a hotpath
>
> operation. Also please switch to S_IRUGO / S_IWUSR and simplify the
>
> whole thing to:
>
> umode_t umode = S_IRUGO;
>
> if (!irqd_affinity_is_managed(&desc->irq_data))
Okay, I will delete the unlikely.
After thoroughly analyzing the code, I think it would be better to replace irqd_affinity_is_managed() with irq_can_set_affinity_usr() like below. What do you think?
if (irq_can_set_affinity_usr(desc->irq_data.irq))
umode |= S_IWUSR;
>
> umode |= S_IWUSR;
>
> proc_create_data("smp_affinity", umode, desc->dir, &irq_affinity_proc_ops, irqp);
>
> Thanks,
>
> tglx
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists