netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v3 2/3] udp: implement memory accounting helpers

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:   Thu, 29 Sep 2016 09:34:42 +0200
From:   Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To:     Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
        Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@...marydata.com>,
        Alexander Duyck <aduyck@...antis.com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>,
        Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>,
        Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com>, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 2/3] udp: implement memory accounting helpers

Hi Eric,

On Wed, 2016-09-28 at 18:42 -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-09-28 at 12:52 +0200, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> 
> > +static void udp_rmem_release(struct sock *sk, int partial)
> > +{
> > +	struct udp_sock *up = udp_sk(sk);
> > +	int fwd, amt;
> > +
> > +	if (partial && !udp_under_memory_pressure(sk))
> > +		return;
> > +
> > +	/* we can have concurrent release; if we catch any conflict
> > +	 * we let only one of them do the work
> > +	 */
> > +	if (atomic_dec_if_positive(&up->can_reclaim) < 0)
> > +		return;
> > +
> > +	fwd = __udp_forward(up, atomic_read(&sk->sk_rmem_alloc));
> > +	if (fwd < SK_MEM_QUANTUM + partial) {
> > +		atomic_inc(&up->can_reclaim);
> > +		return;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	amt = (fwd - partial) & ~(SK_MEM_QUANTUM - 1);
> > +	atomic_sub(amt, &up->mem_allocated);
> > +	atomic_inc(&up->can_reclaim);
> > +
> > +	__sk_mem_reduce_allocated(sk, amt >> SK_MEM_QUANTUM_SHIFT);
> > +	sk->sk_forward_alloc = fwd - amt;
> > +}

Thank you for reviewing this!

> This is racy... 

Could you please elaborate? 

> all these atomics make me nervous...

I'd like to drop some of them if possible.

atomic_inc(&up->can_reclaim);

could probably be replaced with atomic_set(&up->can_reclaim, 1) since we
don't have concurrent processes doing that and can_reclaim.counter is
known to be 0 at that point.
Performance wise the impact is minimal, since in normal condition we do
the reclaim only on socket shutdown.

Paolo