netdev - Re: [PATCH v6 net-next 14/15] net: bonding: ensure .ndo_get

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:   Tue, 12 Jan 2021 18:00:46 -0800
From:   Jay Vosburgh <jay.vosburgh@...onical.com>
To:     Saeed Mahameed <saeed@...nel.org>
cc:     Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
        Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        George McCollister <george.mccollister@...il.com>,
        Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de>,
        Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...il.com>,
        Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Taehee Yoo <ap420073@...il.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>,
        Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...dia.com>,
        Pravin B Shelar <pshelar@....org>,
        Sridhar Samudrala <sridhar.samudrala@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 net-next 14/15] net: bonding: ensure .ndo_get_stats64 can sleep

Saeed Mahameed <saeed@...nel.org> wrote:

>On Tue, 2021-01-12 at 16:37 +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 03:38:49PM -0800, Saeed Mahameed wrote:
>> > GFP_ATOMIC is a little bit aggressive especially when user daemons
>> > are
>> > periodically reading stats. This can be avoided.
>> > 
>> > You can pre-allocate with GFP_KERNEL an array with an "approximate"
>> > size.
>> > then fill the array up with whatever slaves the the bond has at
>> > that
>> > moment, num_of_slaves  can be less, equal or more than the array
>> > you
>> > just allocated but we shouldn't care ..
>> > 
>> > something like:
>> > rcu_read_lock()
>> > nslaves = bond_get_num_slaves();
>> > rcu_read_unlock()

	Can be nslaves = READ_ONCE(bond->slave_cnt), or, for just active
slaves:

	struct bond_up_slave *slaves;
	slaves = rcu_dereference(bond->slave_arr);
	nslaves = slaves ? READ_ONCE(slaves->count) : 0;

>> > sarray = kcalloc(nslaves, sizeof(struct bonding_slave_dev),
>> > GFP_KERNEL);
>> > rcu_read_lock();
>> > bond_fill_slaves_array(bond, sarray); // also do: dev_hold()
>> > rcu_read_unlock();
>> > 
>> > 
>> > bond_get_slaves_array_stats(sarray);
>> > 
>> > bond_put_slaves_array(sarray);
>> 
>> I don't know what to say about acquiring RCU read lock twice and
>> traversing the list of interfaces three or four times.
>
>You can optimize this by tracking #num_slaves.

	I think that the set of active slaves changing between the two
calls will be a rare exception, and that the number of slaves is
generally small (more than 2 is uncommon in my experience).

>> On the other hand, what's the worst that can happen if the GFP_ATOMIC
>> memory allocation fails. It's not like there is any data loss.
>> User space will retry when there is less memory pressure.
>
>Anyway Up to you, i just don't like it when we use GFP_ATOMIC when it
>can be avoided, especially for periodic jobs, like stats polling.. 

	And, for the common case, I suspect that an array allocation
will have lower overhead than a loop that allocates once per slave.

	-J

---
	-Jay Vosburgh, jay.vosburgh@...onical.com