| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20250419-auftrag-knipsen-6e56b0ccd267@brauner>
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2025 12:44:18 +0200
From: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
To: Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net>
Cc: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, Eric Chanudet <echanude@...hat.com>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Clark Williams <clrkwllms@...nel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Ian Kent <ikent@...hat.com>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-rt-devel@...ts.linux.dev,
Alexander Larsson <alexl@...hat.com>, Lucas Karpinski <lkarpins@...hat.com>, Aishwarya.TCV@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] fs/namespace: defer RCU sync for MNT_DETACH umount
On Sat, Apr 19, 2025 at 09:24:31AM +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
>
> On 18/4/25 16:47, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 18, 2025 at 09:20:52AM +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> > > On 18/4/25 09:13, Ian Kent wrote:
> > > > On 18/4/25 00:28, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Apr 17, 2025 at 05:31:26PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > On 2025-04-17 17:28:20 [+0200], Christian Brauner wrote:
> > > > > > > > So if there's some userspace process with a broken
> > > > > > > > NFS server and it
> > > > > > > > does umount(MNT_DETACH) it will end up hanging every other
> > > > > > > > umount(MNT_DETACH) on the system because the dealyed_mntput_work
> > > > > > > > workqueue (to my understanding) cannot make progress.
> > > > > > > Ok, "to my understanding" has been updated after going back
> > > > > > > and reading
> > > > > > > the delayed work code. Luckily it's not as bad as I thought it is
> > > > > > > because it's queued on system_wq which is multi-threaded so it's at
> > > > > > > least not causing everyone with MNT_DETACH to get stuck. I'm still
> > > > > > > skeptical how safe this all is.
> > > > > > I would (again) throw system_unbound_wq into the game because
> > > > > > the former
> > > > > > will remain on the CPU on which has been enqueued (if speaking about
> > > > > > multi threading).
> > > > > Yes, good point.
> > > > >
> > > > > However, what about using polled grace periods?
> > > > >
> > > > > A first simple-minded thing to do would be to record the grace period
> > > > > after umount_tree() has finished and the check it in namespace_unlock():
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/fs/namespace.c b/fs/namespace.c
> > > > > index d9ca80dcc544..1e7ebcdd1ebc 100644
> > > > > --- a/fs/namespace.c
> > > > > +++ b/fs/namespace.c
> > > > > @@ -77,6 +77,7 @@ static struct hlist_head *mount_hashtable
> > > > > __ro_after_init;
> > > > > static struct hlist_head *mountpoint_hashtable __ro_after_init;
> > > > > static struct kmem_cache *mnt_cache __ro_after_init;
> > > > > static DECLARE_RWSEM(namespace_sem);
> > > > > +static unsigned long rcu_unmount_seq; /* protected by namespace_sem */
> > > > > static HLIST_HEAD(unmounted); /* protected by namespace_sem */
> > > > > static LIST_HEAD(ex_mountpoints); /* protected by namespace_sem */
> > > > > static DEFINE_SEQLOCK(mnt_ns_tree_lock);
> > > > > @@ -1794,6 +1795,7 @@ static void namespace_unlock(void)
> > > > > struct hlist_head head;
> > > > > struct hlist_node *p;
> > > > > struct mount *m;
> > > > > + unsigned long unmount_seq = rcu_unmount_seq;
> > > > > LIST_HEAD(list);
> > > > >
> > > > > hlist_move_list(&unmounted, &head);
> > > > > @@ -1817,7 +1819,7 @@ static void namespace_unlock(void)
> > > > > if (likely(hlist_empty(&head)))
> > > > > return;
> > > > >
> > > > > - synchronize_rcu_expedited();
> > > > > + cond_synchronize_rcu_expedited(unmount_seq);
> > > > >
> > > > > hlist_for_each_entry_safe(m, p, &head, mnt_umount) {
> > > > > hlist_del(&m->mnt_umount);
> > > > > @@ -1939,6 +1941,8 @@ static void umount_tree(struct mount *mnt,
> > > > > enum umount_tree_flags how)
> > > > > */
> > > > > mnt_notify_add(p);
> > > > > }
> > > > > +
> > > > > + rcu_unmount_seq = get_state_synchronize_rcu();
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > static void shrink_submounts(struct mount *mnt);
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not sure how much that would buy us. If it doesn't then it should be
> > > > > possible to play with the following possibly strange idea:
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/fs/mount.h b/fs/mount.h
> > > > > index 7aecf2a60472..51b86300dc50 100644
> > > > > --- a/fs/mount.h
> > > > > +++ b/fs/mount.h
> > > > > @@ -61,6 +61,7 @@ struct mount {
> > > > > struct rb_node mnt_node; /* node in the ns->mounts
> > > > > rbtree */
> > > > > struct rcu_head mnt_rcu;
> > > > > struct llist_node mnt_llist;
> > > > > + unsigned long mnt_rcu_unmount_seq;
> > > > > };
> > > > > #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> > > > > struct mnt_pcp __percpu *mnt_pcp;
> > > > > diff --git a/fs/namespace.c b/fs/namespace.c
> > > > > index d9ca80dcc544..aae9df75beed 100644
> > > > > --- a/fs/namespace.c
> > > > > +++ b/fs/namespace.c
> > > > > @@ -1794,6 +1794,7 @@ static void namespace_unlock(void)
> > > > > struct hlist_head head;
> > > > > struct hlist_node *p;
> > > > > struct mount *m;
> > > > > + bool needs_synchronize_rcu = false;
> > > > > LIST_HEAD(list);
> > > > >
> > > > > hlist_move_list(&unmounted, &head);
> > > > > @@ -1817,7 +1818,16 @@ static void namespace_unlock(void)
> > > > > if (likely(hlist_empty(&head)))
> > > > > return;
> > > > >
> > > > > - synchronize_rcu_expedited();
> > > > > + hlist_for_each_entry_safe(m, p, &head, mnt_umount) {
> > > > > + if (!poll_state_synchronize_rcu(m->mnt_rcu_unmount_seq))
> > > > > + continue;
> > This has a bug. This needs to be:
> >
> > /* A grace period has already elapsed. */
> > if (poll_state_synchronize_rcu(m->mnt_rcu_unmount_seq))
> > continue;
> >
> > /* Oh oh, we have to pay up. */
> > needs_synchronize_rcu = true;
> > break;
> >
> > which I'm pretty sure will eradicate most of the performance gain you've
> > seen because fundamentally the two version shouldn't be different (Note,
> > I drafted this while on my way out the door. r.
> >
> > I would test the following version where we pay the cost of the
> > smb_mb() from poll_state_synchronize_rcu() exactly one time:
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/mount.h b/fs/mount.h
> > index 7aecf2a60472..51b86300dc50 100644
> > --- a/fs/mount.h
> > +++ b/fs/mount.h
> > @@ -61,6 +61,7 @@ struct mount {
> > struct rb_node mnt_node; /* node in the ns->mounts rbtree */
> > struct rcu_head mnt_rcu;
> > struct llist_node mnt_llist;
> > + unsigned long mnt_rcu_unmount_seq;
> > };
> > #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> > struct mnt_pcp __percpu *mnt_pcp;
> > diff --git a/fs/namespace.c b/fs/namespace.c
> > index d9ca80dcc544..dd367c54bc29 100644
> > --- a/fs/namespace.c
> > +++ b/fs/namespace.c
> > @@ -1794,6 +1794,7 @@ static void namespace_unlock(void)
> > struct hlist_head head;
> > struct hlist_node *p;
> > struct mount *m;
> > + unsigned long mnt_rcu_unmount_seq = 0;
> > LIST_HEAD(list);
> >
> > hlist_move_list(&unmounted, &head);
> > @@ -1817,7 +1818,10 @@ static void namespace_unlock(void)
> > if (likely(hlist_empty(&head)))
> > return;
> >
> > - synchronize_rcu_expedited();
> > + hlist_for_each_entry_safe(m, p, &head, mnt_umount)
> > + mnt_rcu_unmount_seq = max(m->mnt_rcu_unmount_seq, mnt_rcu_unmount_seq);
> > +
> > + cond_synchronize_rcu_expedited(mnt_rcu_unmount_seq);
> >
> > hlist_for_each_entry_safe(m, p, &head, mnt_umount) {
> > hlist_del(&m->mnt_umount);
> > @@ -1923,8 +1927,10 @@ static void umount_tree(struct mount *mnt, enum umount_tree_flags how)
> > }
> > }
> > change_mnt_propagation(p, MS_PRIVATE);
> > - if (disconnect)
> > + if (disconnect) {
> > + p->mnt_rcu_unmount_seq = get_state_synchronize_rcu();
> > hlist_add_head(&p->mnt_umount, &unmounted);
> > + }
> >
> > /*
> > * At this point p->mnt_ns is NULL, notification will be queued
> >
> > If this doesn't help I had considered recording the rcu sequence number
> > during __legitimize_mnt() in the mounts. But we likely can't do that
> > because get_state_synchronize_rcu() is expensive because it inserts a
> > smb_mb() and that would likely be noticable during path lookup. This
> > would also hinge on the notion that the last store of the rcu sequence
> > number is guaranteed to be seen when we check them in namespace_unlock().
> >
> > Another possibly insane idea (haven't fully thought it out but throwing
> > it out there to test): allocate a percpu counter for each mount and
> > increment it each time we enter __legitimize_mnt() and decrement it when
> > we leave __legitimize_mnt(). During umount_tree() check the percpu sum
> > for each mount after it's been added to the @unmounted list.
>
> I had been thinking that a completion in the mount with a counter (say
>
> walker_cnt) could be used. Because the mounts are unhashed there won't
>
> be new walks so if/once the count is 0 the walker could call complete()
>
> and wait_for_completion() replaces the rcu sync completely. The catch is
>
> managing walker_cnt correctly could be racy or expensive.
>
>
> I thought this would not be received to well dew to the additional fields
Path walking absolutely has to be as fast as possible, unmounting
doesn't. Anything that writes to a shared field from e.g.,
__legitimize_mnt() will cause cacheline pingpong and will very likely be
noticable. And people care about even slight decreases in performances
there. That's why we have the percpu counter and why I didn't even
consider something like the completion stuff.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists