netdev - Re: [PATCH 00/14] replace call_rcu by kfree_rcu for simple kmem_cache

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: <Zmo9-YGraiCj5-MI@zx2c4.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 02:31:53 +0200
From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@...ia.fr>,
	linux-block@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
	bridge@...ts.linux.dev, linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
	kvm@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
	"Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@...ux.ibm.com>,
	Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
	Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	wireguard@...ts.zx2c4.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	ecryptfs@...r.kernel.org, Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>,
	Olga Kornievskaia <kolga@...app.com>, Dai Ngo <Dai.Ngo@...cle.com>,
	Tom Talpey <tom@...pey.com>, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-can@...r.kernel.org, Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
	netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, coreteam@...filter.org,
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/14] replace call_rcu by kfree_rcu for simple
 kmem_cache_free callback

On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 01:31:57AM +0200, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 03:37:55PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 02:33:05PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > On Sun,  9 Jun 2024 10:27:12 +0200 Julia Lawall wrote:
> > > > Since SLOB was removed, it is not necessary to use call_rcu
> > > > when the callback only performs kmem_cache_free. Use
> > > > kfree_rcu() directly.
> > > > 
> > > > The changes were done using the following Coccinelle semantic patch.
> > > > This semantic patch is designed to ignore cases where the callback
> > > > function is used in another way.
> > > 
> > > How does the discussion on:
> > >   [PATCH] Revert "batman-adv: prefer kfree_rcu() over call_rcu() with free-only callbacks"
> > >   https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240612133357.2596-1-linus.luessing@c0d3.blue/
> > > reflect on this series? IIUC we should hold off..
> > 
> > We do need to hold off for the ones in kernel modules (such as 07/14)
> > where the kmem_cache is destroyed during module unload.
> > 
> > OK, I might as well go through them...
> > 
> > [PATCH 01/14] wireguard: allowedips: replace call_rcu by kfree_rcu for simple kmem_cache_free callback
> > 	Needs to wait, see wg_allowedips_slab_uninit().
> 
> Right, this has exactly the same pattern as the batman-adv issue:
> 
>     void wg_allowedips_slab_uninit(void)
>     {
>             rcu_barrier();
>             kmem_cache_destroy(node_cache);
>     }
> 
> I'll hold off on sending that up until this matter is resolved.

BTW, I think this whole thing might be caused by:

    a35d16905efc ("rcu: Add basic support for kfree_rcu() batching")

The commit message there mentions:

    There is an implication with rcu_barrier() with this patch. Since the
    kfree_rcu() calls can be batched, and may not be handed yet to the RCU
    machinery in fact, the monitor may not have even run yet to do the
    queue_rcu_work(), there seems no easy way of implementing rcu_barrier()
    to wait for those kfree_rcu()s that are already made. So this means a
    kfree_rcu() followed by an rcu_barrier() does not imply that memory will
    be freed once rcu_barrier() returns.

Before that, a kfree_rcu() used to just add a normal call_rcu() into the
list, but with the function offset < 4096 as a special marker. So the
kfree_rcu() calls would be treated alongside the other call_rcu() ones
and thus affected by rcu_barrier(). Looks like that behavior is no more
since this commit.

Rather than getting rid of the batching, which seems good for
efficiency, I wonder if the right fix to this would be adding a
`should_destroy` boolean to kmem_cache, which kmem_cache_destroy() sets
to true. And then right after it checks `if (number_of_allocations == 0)
actually_destroy()`, and likewise on each kmem_cache_free(), it could
check `if (should_destroy && number_of_allocations == 0)
actually_destroy()`. This way, the work is delayed until it's safe to do
so. This might also mitigate other lurking bugs of bad code that calls
kmem_cache_destroy() before kmem_cache_free().

Jason