| 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: <CA+icZUWdUUhWg_-0NvF+6L=EUhj7amv_7HRKHDPvrEBspwHC2Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2024 13:25:20 +0100
From: Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@...il.com>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
boqun.feng@...il.com, Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] fs/pipe: Convert to lockdep_cmp_fn
On Fri, Feb 2, 2024 at 1:12 PM Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> wrote:
>
> On Fri 26-01-24 21:08:28, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > *_lock_nested() is fundamentally broken; lockdep needs to check lock
> > ordering, but we cannot device a total ordering on an unbounded number
> > of elements with only a few subclasses.
> >
> > the replacement is to define lock ordering with a proper comparison
> > function.
> >
> > fs/pipe.c was already doing everything correctly otherwise, nothing
> > much changes here.
> >
> > Cc: Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
> > Cc: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
> > Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
> > Signed-off-by: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>
>
> I had to digest for a while what this new lockdep lock ordering feature is
> about. I have one pending question - what is the motivation of this
> conversion of pipe code? AFAIU we don't have any problems with lockdep
> annotations on pipe->mutex because there are always only two subclasses?
>
> Honza
Hi,
"Numbers talk - Bullshit walks." (Linus Torvalds)
In things of pipes - I normally benchmark like this (example):
root# cat /dev/sdc | pipebench > /dev/null
Do you have numbers for your patch-series?
Thanks.
BG,
-Sedat-
[1] https://packages.debian.org/pipebench
>
> > ---
> > fs/pipe.c | 81 +++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------------
> > 1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 45 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/pipe.c b/fs/pipe.c
> > index f1adbfe743d4..50c8a8596b52 100644
> > --- a/fs/pipe.c
> > +++ b/fs/pipe.c
> > @@ -76,18 +76,20 @@ static unsigned long pipe_user_pages_soft = PIPE_DEF_BUFFERS * INR_OPEN_CUR;
> > * -- Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com> 2002-05-09
> > */
> >
> > -static void pipe_lock_nested(struct pipe_inode_info *pipe, int subclass)
> > +#define cmp_int(l, r) ((l > r) - (l < r))
> > +
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING
> > +static int pipe_lock_cmp_fn(const struct lockdep_map *a,
> > + const struct lockdep_map *b)
> > {
> > - if (pipe->files)
> > - mutex_lock_nested(&pipe->mutex, subclass);
> > + return cmp_int((unsigned long) a, (unsigned long) b);
> > }
> > +#endif
> >
> > void pipe_lock(struct pipe_inode_info *pipe)
> > {
> > - /*
> > - * pipe_lock() nests non-pipe inode locks (for writing to a file)
> > - */
> > - pipe_lock_nested(pipe, I_MUTEX_PARENT);
> > + if (pipe->files)
> > + mutex_lock(&pipe->mutex);
> > }
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL(pipe_lock);
> >
> > @@ -98,28 +100,16 @@ void pipe_unlock(struct pipe_inode_info *pipe)
> > }
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL(pipe_unlock);
> >
> > -static inline void __pipe_lock(struct pipe_inode_info *pipe)
> > -{
> > - mutex_lock_nested(&pipe->mutex, I_MUTEX_PARENT);
> > -}
> > -
> > -static inline void __pipe_unlock(struct pipe_inode_info *pipe)
> > -{
> > - mutex_unlock(&pipe->mutex);
> > -}
> > -
> > void pipe_double_lock(struct pipe_inode_info *pipe1,
> > struct pipe_inode_info *pipe2)
> > {
> > BUG_ON(pipe1 == pipe2);
> >
> > - if (pipe1 < pipe2) {
> > - pipe_lock_nested(pipe1, I_MUTEX_PARENT);
> > - pipe_lock_nested(pipe2, I_MUTEX_CHILD);
> > - } else {
> > - pipe_lock_nested(pipe2, I_MUTEX_PARENT);
> > - pipe_lock_nested(pipe1, I_MUTEX_CHILD);
> > - }
> > + if (pipe1 > pipe2)
> > + swap(pipe1, pipe2);
> > +
> > + pipe_lock(pipe1);
> > + pipe_lock(pipe2);
> > }
> >
> > static void anon_pipe_buf_release(struct pipe_inode_info *pipe,
> > @@ -271,7 +261,7 @@ pipe_read(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *to)
> > return 0;
> >
> > ret = 0;
> > - __pipe_lock(pipe);
> > + mutex_lock(&pipe->mutex);
> >
> > /*
> > * We only wake up writers if the pipe was full when we started
> > @@ -368,7 +358,7 @@ pipe_read(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *to)
> > ret = -EAGAIN;
> > break;
> > }
> > - __pipe_unlock(pipe);
> > + mutex_unlock(&pipe->mutex);
> >
> > /*
> > * We only get here if we didn't actually read anything.
> > @@ -400,13 +390,13 @@ pipe_read(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *to)
> > if (wait_event_interruptible_exclusive(pipe->rd_wait, pipe_readable(pipe)) < 0)
> > return -ERESTARTSYS;
> >
> > - __pipe_lock(pipe);
> > + mutex_lock(&pipe->mutex);
> > was_full = pipe_full(pipe->head, pipe->tail, pipe->max_usage);
> > wake_next_reader = true;
> > }
> > if (pipe_empty(pipe->head, pipe->tail))
> > wake_next_reader = false;
> > - __pipe_unlock(pipe);
> > + mutex_unlock(&pipe->mutex);
> >
> > if (was_full)
> > wake_up_interruptible_sync_poll(&pipe->wr_wait, EPOLLOUT | EPOLLWRNORM);
> > @@ -462,7 +452,7 @@ pipe_write(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *from)
> > if (unlikely(total_len == 0))
> > return 0;
> >
> > - __pipe_lock(pipe);
> > + mutex_lock(&pipe->mutex);
> >
> > if (!pipe->readers) {
> > send_sig(SIGPIPE, current, 0);
> > @@ -582,19 +572,19 @@ pipe_write(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *from)
> > * after waiting we need to re-check whether the pipe
> > * become empty while we dropped the lock.
> > */
> > - __pipe_unlock(pipe);
> > + mutex_unlock(&pipe->mutex);
> > if (was_empty)
> > wake_up_interruptible_sync_poll(&pipe->rd_wait, EPOLLIN | EPOLLRDNORM);
> > kill_fasync(&pipe->fasync_readers, SIGIO, POLL_IN);
> > wait_event_interruptible_exclusive(pipe->wr_wait, pipe_writable(pipe));
> > - __pipe_lock(pipe);
> > + mutex_lock(&pipe->mutex);
> > was_empty = pipe_empty(pipe->head, pipe->tail);
> > wake_next_writer = true;
> > }
> > out:
> > if (pipe_full(pipe->head, pipe->tail, pipe->max_usage))
> > wake_next_writer = false;
> > - __pipe_unlock(pipe);
> > + mutex_unlock(&pipe->mutex);
> >
> > /*
> > * If we do do a wakeup event, we do a 'sync' wakeup, because we
> > @@ -629,7 +619,7 @@ static long pipe_ioctl(struct file *filp, unsigned int cmd, unsigned long arg)
> >
> > switch (cmd) {
> > case FIONREAD:
> > - __pipe_lock(pipe);
> > + mutex_lock(&pipe->mutex);
> > count = 0;
> > head = pipe->head;
> > tail = pipe->tail;
> > @@ -639,16 +629,16 @@ static long pipe_ioctl(struct file *filp, unsigned int cmd, unsigned long arg)
> > count += pipe->bufs[tail & mask].len;
> > tail++;
> > }
> > - __pipe_unlock(pipe);
> > + mutex_unlock(&pipe->mutex);
> >
> > return put_user(count, (int __user *)arg);
> >
> > #ifdef CONFIG_WATCH_QUEUE
> > case IOC_WATCH_QUEUE_SET_SIZE: {
> > int ret;
> > - __pipe_lock(pipe);
> > + mutex_lock(&pipe->mutex);
> > ret = watch_queue_set_size(pipe, arg);
> > - __pipe_unlock(pipe);
> > + mutex_unlock(&pipe->mutex);
> > return ret;
> > }
> >
> > @@ -734,7 +724,7 @@ pipe_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
> > {
> > struct pipe_inode_info *pipe = file->private_data;
> >
> > - __pipe_lock(pipe);
> > + mutex_lock(&pipe->mutex);
> > if (file->f_mode & FMODE_READ)
> > pipe->readers--;
> > if (file->f_mode & FMODE_WRITE)
> > @@ -747,7 +737,7 @@ pipe_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
> > kill_fasync(&pipe->fasync_readers, SIGIO, POLL_IN);
> > kill_fasync(&pipe->fasync_writers, SIGIO, POLL_OUT);
> > }
> > - __pipe_unlock(pipe);
> > + mutex_unlock(&pipe->mutex);
> >
> > put_pipe_info(inode, pipe);
> > return 0;
> > @@ -759,7 +749,7 @@ pipe_fasync(int fd, struct file *filp, int on)
> > struct pipe_inode_info *pipe = filp->private_data;
> > int retval = 0;
> >
> > - __pipe_lock(pipe);
> > + mutex_lock(&pipe->mutex);
> > if (filp->f_mode & FMODE_READ)
> > retval = fasync_helper(fd, filp, on, &pipe->fasync_readers);
> > if ((filp->f_mode & FMODE_WRITE) && retval >= 0) {
> > @@ -768,7 +758,7 @@ pipe_fasync(int fd, struct file *filp, int on)
> > /* this can happen only if on == T */
> > fasync_helper(-1, filp, 0, &pipe->fasync_readers);
> > }
> > - __pipe_unlock(pipe);
> > + mutex_unlock(&pipe->mutex);
> > return retval;
> > }
> >
> > @@ -834,6 +824,7 @@ struct pipe_inode_info *alloc_pipe_info(void)
> > pipe->nr_accounted = pipe_bufs;
> > pipe->user = user;
> > mutex_init(&pipe->mutex);
> > + lock_set_cmp_fn(&pipe->mutex, pipe_lock_cmp_fn, NULL);
> > return pipe;
> > }
> >
> > @@ -1144,7 +1135,7 @@ static int fifo_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp)
> > filp->private_data = pipe;
> > /* OK, we have a pipe and it's pinned down */
> >
> > - __pipe_lock(pipe);
> > + mutex_lock(&pipe->mutex);
> >
> > /* We can only do regular read/write on fifos */
> > stream_open(inode, filp);
> > @@ -1214,7 +1205,7 @@ static int fifo_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp)
> > }
> >
> > /* Ok! */
> > - __pipe_unlock(pipe);
> > + mutex_unlock(&pipe->mutex);
> > return 0;
> >
> > err_rd:
> > @@ -1230,7 +1221,7 @@ static int fifo_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp)
> > goto err;
> >
> > err:
> > - __pipe_unlock(pipe);
> > + mutex_unlock(&pipe->mutex);
> >
> > put_pipe_info(inode, pipe);
> > return ret;
> > @@ -1411,7 +1402,7 @@ long pipe_fcntl(struct file *file, unsigned int cmd, unsigned int arg)
> > if (!pipe)
> > return -EBADF;
> >
> > - __pipe_lock(pipe);
> > + mutex_lock(&pipe->mutex);
> >
> > switch (cmd) {
> > case F_SETPIPE_SZ:
> > @@ -1425,7 +1416,7 @@ long pipe_fcntl(struct file *file, unsigned int cmd, unsigned int arg)
> > break;
> > }
> >
> > - __pipe_unlock(pipe);
> > + mutex_unlock(&pipe->mutex);
> > return ret;
> > }
> >
> > --
> > 2.43.0
> >
> --
> Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
> SUSE Labs, CR
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists