linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
To: jack@suse.cz
Cc: linux-audit@redhat.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, rgb@redhat.com, amir73il@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/10] audit: Replace chunk attached to mark instead of replacing mark
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2018 00:47:42 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAHC9VhTnrQ6rXjQdJz4PQU42+6K=XqdM+nLxsY-+J+7q1EipYA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180710100217.12866-11-jack@suse.cz>

On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 6:02 AM Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> wrote:
> Audit tree code currently associates new fsnotify mark with each new
> chunk. As chunk attached to an inode is replaced when new tag is added /
> removed, we also need to remove old fsnotify mark and add a new one on
> such occasion.  This is cumbersome and makes locking rules somewhat
> difficult to follow.
>
> Fix these problems by allocating fsnotify mark independently of chunk
> and keeping it all the time while there is some chunk attached to an
> inode. Also add documentation about the locking rules so that things are
> easier to follow.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
> ---
>  kernel/audit_tree.c | 163 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------
>  1 file changed, 85 insertions(+), 78 deletions(-)

This is a really nice improvement, thanks!

> diff --git a/kernel/audit_tree.c b/kernel/audit_tree.c
> index aec9b27a20ff..40f61de77dd0 100644
> --- a/kernel/audit_tree.c
> +++ b/kernel/audit_tree.c
> @@ -272,6 +273,20 @@ static struct audit_chunk *find_chunk(struct node *p)
>         return container_of(p, struct audit_chunk, owners[0]);
>  }
>
> +static void replace_mark_chunk(struct fsnotify_mark *entry,
> +                              struct audit_chunk *chunk)
> +{
> +       struct audit_chunk *old;
> +
> +       assert_spin_locked(&hash_lock);
> +       old = AUDIT_M(entry)->chunk;
> +       AUDIT_M(entry)->chunk = chunk;
> +       if (chunk)
> +               chunk->mark = entry;
> +       if (old)
> +               old->mark = NULL;

Is it necessary that we check to see if chunk and old are non-NULL?
It seems like we would always want to set chunk->mark to entry and set
old->mark to NULL, yes?

> @@ -321,29 +341,31 @@ static void untag_chunk(struct node *p)
>
>         mutex_lock(&entry->group->mark_mutex);
>         /*
> -        * mark_mutex protects mark from getting detached and thus also from
> -        * mark->connector->obj getting NULL.
> +        * mark_mutex protects mark stabilizes chunk attached to the mark so we
> +        * can check whether it didn't change while we've dropped hash_lock.

I think your new text could use some revision, the "protects mark
stabilizes chunk" is odd.

>          */
> -       if (chunk->dead || !(entry->flags & FSNOTIFY_MARK_FLAG_ATTACHED)) {
> +       if (!(entry->flags & FSNOTIFY_MARK_FLAG_ATTACHED) ||
> +           AUDIT_M(entry)->chunk != chunk) {
>                 mutex_unlock(&entry->group->mark_mutex);
>                 if (new)
> -                       fsnotify_put_mark(new->mark);
> +                       kfree(new);

Since we are just calling kfree() now we can do away with the "if (new)" check.

--
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com

  parent reply	other threads:[~2018-07-27  6:07 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-07-10 10:02 [PATCH 0/10 v2] audit: Fix various races when tagging and untagging mounts Jan Kara
2018-07-10 10:02 ` [PATCH 01/10] audit_tree: Remove mark->lock locking Jan Kara
2018-07-27  4:47   ` Paul Moore
2018-09-04  9:53     ` Jan Kara
2018-07-10 10:02 ` [PATCH 02/10] audit: Fix possible spurious -ENOSPC error Jan Kara
2018-07-27  4:47   ` Paul Moore
2018-09-04 10:00     ` Jan Kara
2018-07-10 10:02 ` [PATCH 03/10] audit: Fix possible tagging failures Jan Kara
2018-07-10 10:02 ` [PATCH 04/10] audit: Embed key into chunk Jan Kara
2018-07-27  4:47   ` Paul Moore
2018-07-10 10:02 ` [PATCH 05/10] audit: Make hash table insertion safe against concurrent lookups Jan Kara
2018-07-10 10:02 ` [PATCH 06/10] audit: Factor out chunk replacement code Jan Kara
2018-07-11  7:58   ` Amir Goldstein
2018-07-11  8:26     ` Jan Kara
2018-07-11  9:01       ` Amir Goldstein
2018-07-11  9:23         ` Jan Kara
2018-07-27  4:47   ` Paul Moore
2018-07-10 10:02 ` [PATCH 07/10] audit: Remove pointless check in insert_hash() Jan Kara
2018-07-27  4:47   ` Paul Moore
2018-07-10 10:02 ` [PATCH 08/10] audit: Provide helper for dropping mark's chunk reference Jan Kara
2018-07-10 10:02 ` [PATCH 09/10] audit: Allocate fsnotify mark independently of chunk Jan Kara
2018-07-11  8:57   ` Amir Goldstein
2018-07-11 10:48     ` Amir Goldstein
2018-07-16 15:13       ` Jan Kara
2018-07-27  4:47   ` Paul Moore
2018-09-04 14:03     ` Jan Kara
2018-09-04 14:07       ` Jan Kara
2018-07-10 10:02 ` [PATCH 10/10] audit: Replace chunk attached to mark instead of replacing mark Jan Kara
2018-07-11 14:17   ` Amir Goldstein
2018-07-27  4:47   ` Paul Moore [this message]
2018-09-04 14:11     ` Jan Kara
2018-07-10 10:02 ` [PATCH 11/10 TESTSUITE] audit_testsuite: Add stress test for tree watches Jan Kara

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='CAHC9VhTnrQ6rXjQdJz4PQU42+6K=XqdM+nLxsY-+J+7q1EipYA@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=paul@paul-moore.com \
    --cc=amir73il@gmail.com \
    --cc=jack@suse.cz \
    --cc=linux-audit@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rgb@redhat.com \
    --cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
    /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).