netdev - Re: [PATCH 6/6] fs: replace f_ops->get_poll_head with a static ->f_poll

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, 28 Jun 2018 22:30:27 +0100
From:   Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, LKP <lkp@...org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] fs: replace f_ops->get_poll_head with a static
 ->f_poll_head pointer

On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 02:11:17PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 1:28 PM Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Sure, but...
> >
> > static __poll_t binder_poll(struct file *filp,
> >                                 struct poll_table_struct *wait)
> > {
> >         struct binder_proc *proc = filp->private_data;
> >         struct binder_thread *thread = NULL;
> >         bool wait_for_proc_work;
> >
> >         thread = binder_get_thread(proc);
> >         if (!thread)
> >                 return POLLERR;
> 
> That's actually fine.
> 
> In particular, it's ok to *not* add yourself to the wait-queues if you
> already return the value that you will always return.

Sure (and that's one of the problems I mentioned with ->get_poll_head() model).
But in this case I was refering to GFP_KERNEL allocation down there.

> > And that's hardly unique - we have instances playing with timers,
> > allocations, whatnot.  Even straight mutex_lock(), as in
> 
> So?
> 
> Again, locking is permitted. It's not great, but it's not against the rules.

Me: a *LOT* of ->poll() instances only block in __pollwait() called (indirectly)
on the first pass.

You: They are *all* supposed to do it.

Me: <examples of instances that block elsewhere>

I'm not saying that blocking on other things is a bug; some of such *are* bogus,
but a lot aren't really broken.  What I said is that in a lot of cases we really
have hard "no blocking other than in callback" (and on subsequent passes there's
no callback at all).  Which is just about perfect for AIO purposes, so *IF* we
go for "new method just for AIO, those who don't have it can take a hike", we might
as well indicate that "can take a hike" in some way (be it opt-in or opt-out) and
use straight unchanged ->poll(), with alternative callback.

Looks like we were talking past each other for the last couple of rounds...

> So none of the things you point to are excuses for changing interfaces
> or adding any flags.

> Anybody who thinks "select cannot block" or "->poll() musn't block" is
> just confused. It has *never* been about that. It waits asynchronously
> for IO, but it may well wait synchronously for locks or memory or just
> "lazy implementation".

Obviously.  I *do* understand how poll() works, really.

> The fact is, those interface changes were just broken shit. They were
> confused. I don't actually believe that AIO even needed them.
> 
> Christoph, do you have a test program for IOCB_CMD_POLL and what it's
> actually supposed to do?
> 
> Because I think that what it can do is simply to do the ->poll() calls
> outside the iocb locks, and then just attach the poll table to the
> kioctx afterwards.

I'd do a bit more - embed the first poll_table_entry into poll iocb itself,
so that the instances that use only one queue wouldn't need any allocations
at all.