From: Xiaoming Ni <nixiaoming@huawei.com>
To: "gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: Vasily Averin <vvs@virtuozzo.com>,
"adobriyan@gmail.com" <adobriyan@gmail.com>,
"akpm@linux-foundation.org" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"anna.schumaker@netapp.com" <anna.schumaker@netapp.com>,
"arjan@linux.intel.com" <arjan@linux.intel.com>,
"bfields@fieldses.org" <bfields@fieldses.org>,
"chuck.lever@oracle.com" <chuck.lever@oracle.com>,
"davem@davemloft.net" <davem@davemloft.net>,
"jlayton@kernel.org" <jlayton@kernel.org>,
"luto@kernel.org" <luto@kernel.org>,
"mingo@kernel.org" <mingo@kernel.org>,
"Nadia.Derbey@bull.net" <Nadia.Derbey@bull.net>,
"paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"semen.protsenko@linaro.org" <semen.protsenko@linaro.org>,
"stable@kernel.org" <stable@kernel.org>,
"stern@rowland.harvard.edu" <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
"tglx@linutronix.de" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"torvalds@linux-foundation.org" <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
"trond.myklebust@hammerspace.com"
<trond.myklebust@hammerspace.com>,
"viresh.kumar@linaro.org" <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
"Huangjianhui (Alex)" <alex.huangjianhui@huawei.com>,
Dailei <dylix.dailei@huawei.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org" <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>,
"netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] kernel/notifier.c: avoid duplicate registration
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2019 10:45:39 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <65f50cf2-3051-ab55-078f-30930fe0c9bc@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190712140729.GA11583@kroah.com>
On 2019/7/12 22:07, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 09:11:57PM +0800, Xiaoming Ni wrote:
>> On 2019/7/11 21:57, Vasily Averin wrote:
>>> On 7/11/19 4:55 AM, Nixiaoming wrote:
>>>> On Wed, July 10, 2019 1:49 PM Vasily Averin wrote:
>>>>> On 7/10/19 6:09 AM, Xiaoming Ni wrote:
>>>>>> Registering the same notifier to a hook repeatedly can cause the hook
>>>>>> list to form a ring or lose other members of the list.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think is not enough to _prevent_ 2nd register attempt,
>>>>> it's enough to detect just attempt and generate warning to mark host in bad state.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Duplicate registration is prevented in my patch, not just "mark host in bad state"
>>>>
>>>> Duplicate registration is checked and exited in notifier_chain_cond_register()
>>>>
>>>> Duplicate registration was checked in notifier_chain_register() but only
>>>> the alarm was triggered without exiting. added by commit 831246570d34692e
>>>> ("kernel/notifier.c: double register detection")
>>>>
>>>> My patch is like a combination of 831246570d34692e and notifier_chain_cond_register(),
>>>> which triggers an alarm and exits when a duplicate registration is detected.
>>>>
>>>>> Unexpected 2nd register of the same hook most likely will lead to 2nd unregister,
>>>>> and it can lead to host crash in any time:
>>>>> you can unregister notifier on first attempt it can be too early, it can be still in use.
>>>>> on the other hand you can never call 2nd unregister at all.
>>>>
>>>> Since the member was not added to the linked list at the time of the second registration,
>>>> no linked list ring was formed.
>>>> The member is released on the first unregistration and -ENOENT on the second unregistration.
>>>> After patching, the fault has been alleviated
>>>
>>> You are wrong here.
>>> 2nd notifier's registration is a pure bug, this should never happen.
>>> If you know the way to reproduce this situation -- you need to fix it.
>>>
>>> 2nd registration can happen in 2 cases:
>>> 1) missed rollback, when someone forget to call unregister after successfull registration,
>>> and then tried to call register again. It can lead to crash for example when according module will be unloaded.
>>> 2) some subsystem is registered twice, for example from different namespaces.
>>> in this case unregister called during sybsystem cleanup in first namespace will incorrectly remove notifier used
>>> in second namespace, it also can lead to unexpacted behaviour.
>>>
>> So in these two cases, is it more reasonable to trigger BUG() directly when checking for duplicate registration ?
>> But why does current notifier_chain_register() just trigger WARN() without exiting ?
>> notifier_chain_cond_register() direct exit without triggering WARN() ?
>
> It should recover from this, if it can be detected. The main point is
> that not all apis have to be this "robust" when used within the kernel
> as we do allow for the callers to know what they are doing :)
>
In the notifier_chain_register(), the condition ( (*nl) == n) is the same registration of the same hook.
We can intercept this situation and avoid forming a linked list ring to make the API more rob
> If this does not cause any additional problems or slow downs, it's
> probably fine to add.
>
Notifier_chain_register() is not a system hotspot function.
At the same time, there is already a WARN_ONCE judgment. There is no new judgment in the new patch.
It only changes the processing under the condition of (*nl) == n, which will not cause performance problems.
At the same time, avoiding the formation of a link ring can make the system more robust.
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
>
> .
>
Thanks
Xiaoming Ni
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-07-14 2:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-07-10 3:09 [PATCH v3 0/3] kernel/notifier.c: avoid duplicate registration Xiaoming Ni
2019-07-10 5:49 ` Vasily Averin
2019-07-11 1:55 ` Nixiaoming
2019-07-11 13:57 ` Vasily Averin
2019-07-12 13:11 ` Xiaoming Ni
2019-07-12 14:07 ` gregkh
2019-07-14 2:45 ` Xiaoming Ni [this message]
2019-07-15 5:38 ` Vasily Averin
2019-07-16 2:00 ` Xiaoming Ni
2019-07-16 10:20 ` Vasily Averin
2019-07-16 14:07 ` Xiaoming Ni
2019-07-17 11:15 ` Vasily Averin
2019-09-10 3:57 ` Xiaoming Ni
2019-07-10 5:56 ` Greg KH
2019-07-11 1:32 ` Nixiaoming
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=65f50cf2-3051-ab55-078f-30930fe0c9bc@huawei.com \
--to=nixiaoming@huawei.com \
--cc=Nadia.Derbey@bull.net \
--cc=adobriyan@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=alex.huangjianhui@huawei.com \
--cc=anna.schumaker@netapp.com \
--cc=arjan@linux.intel.com \
--cc=bfields@fieldses.org \
--cc=chuck.lever@oracle.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=dylix.dailei@huawei.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jlayton@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=semen.protsenko@linaro.org \
--cc=stable@kernel.org \
--cc=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=trond.myklebust@hammerspace.com \
--cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
--cc=vvs@virtuozzo.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).