netdev - Re: [RFC] folding socket->wq into struct socket

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: <20190505.112531.600819597326525048.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Sun, 05 May 2019 11:25:31 -0700 (PDT)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     viro@...iv.linux.org.uk
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] folding socket->wq into struct socket

From: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Date: Sun, 5 May 2019 18:59:43 +0100

> On Sun, May 05, 2019 at 10:04:21AM -0700, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
>> Date: Thu, 2 May 2019 17:32:23 +0100
>> 
>> > it appears that we might take freeing the socket itself to the
>> > RCU-delayed part, along with socket->wq.  And doing that has
>> > an interesting benefit - the only reason to do two separate
>> > allocation disappears.
>> 
>> I'm pretty sure we looked into RCU freeing the socket in the
>> past but ended up not doing so.
>> 
>> I think it had to do with the latency in releasing sock related
>> objects.
>> 
>> However, I might be confusing "struct socket" with "struct sock"
> 
> Erm...  the only object with changed release time is the memory
> occupied by struct sock_alloc.  Currently:
> final iput of socket
> 	schedule RCU-delayed kfree() of socket->wq
> 	kfree() of socket
> With this change:
> final iput of socket
> 	schedule RCU-delayed kfree() of coallocated socket and socket->wq
> 
> So it would have to be a workload where tons of sockets are created and
> torn down, where RCU-delayed freeing of socket_wq is an inevitable evil,
> but freeing struct socket_alloc itself must be done immediately, to
> reduce the memory pressure.  Or am I misreading you?

I think I was remembering trying to RCU "struct sock" release because
those 'sk' refer to SKBs and stuff like that.

So, what you are proposing looks fine.