From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E13EC433E0 for ; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 15:56:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1C0C22C9F for ; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 15:56:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1731366AbhAUP4O (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jan 2021 10:56:14 -0500 Received: from out02.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.232]:48508 "EHLO out02.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1731410AbhAUPwy (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jan 2021 10:52:54 -0500 Received: from in02.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.52]) by out02.mta.xmission.com with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from ) id 1l2cFO-004LO4-Vr; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 08:51:47 -0700 Received: from ip68-227-160-95.om.om.cox.net ([68.227.160.95] helo=x220.xmission.com) by in02.mta.xmission.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from ) id 1l2cFN-0029Ec-Pa; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 08:51:46 -0700 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: Alexey Gladkov Cc: Linus Torvalds , LKML , io-uring , Kernel Hardening , Linux Containers , Linux-MM , Andrew Morton , Christian Brauner , Jann Horn , Jens Axboe , Kees Cook , Oleg Nesterov References: <116c7669744404364651e3b380db2d82bb23f983.1610722473.git.gladkov.alexey@gmail.com> <20210118194551.h2hrwof7b3q5vgoi@example.org> <20210118205629.zro2qkd3ut42bpyq@example.org> <87eeig74kv.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> <20210121120427.iiggfmw3tpsmyzeb@example.org> Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2021 09:50:34 -0600 In-Reply-To: <20210121120427.iiggfmw3tpsmyzeb@example.org> (Alexey Gladkov's message of "Thu, 21 Jan 2021 13:04:27 +0100") Message-ID: <87ft2u2ss5.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-XM-SPF: eid=1l2cFN-0029Ec-Pa;;;mid=<87ft2u2ss5.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org>;;;hst=in02.mta.xmission.com;;;ip=68.227.160.95;;;frm=ebiederm@xmission.com;;;spf=neutral X-XM-AID: U2FsdGVkX1+qagvrCbWceuXumPpyz27FGwz07GA2gjk= X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 68.227.160.95 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ebiederm@xmission.com Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 1/8] Use refcount_t for ucounts reference counting X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Sat, 08 Feb 2020 21:53:50 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on in02.mta.xmission.com) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Alexey Gladkov writes: > On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 07:57:36PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> Alexey Gladkov writes: >> >> > On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 12:34:29PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 11:46 AM Alexey Gladkov >> >> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > Sorry about that. I thought that this code is not needed when switching >> >> > from int to refcount_t. I was wrong. >> >> >> >> Well, you _may_ be right. I personally didn't check how the return >> >> value is used. >> >> >> >> I only reacted to "it certainly _may_ be used, and there is absolutely >> >> no comment anywhere about why it wouldn't matter". >> > >> > I have not found examples where checked the overflow after calling >> > refcount_inc/refcount_add. >> > >> > For example in kernel/fork.c:2298 : >> > >> > current->signal->nr_threads++; >> > atomic_inc(¤t->signal->live); >> > refcount_inc(¤t->signal->sigcnt); >> > >> > $ semind search signal_struct.sigcnt >> > def include/linux/sched/signal.h:83 refcount_t sigcnt; >> > m-- kernel/fork.c:723 put_signal_struct if (refcount_dec_and_test(&sig->sigcnt)) >> > m-- kernel/fork.c:1571 copy_signal refcount_set(&sig->sigcnt, 1); >> > m-- kernel/fork.c:2298 copy_process refcount_inc(¤t->signal->sigcnt); >> > >> > It seems to me that the only way is to use __refcount_inc and then compare >> > the old value with REFCOUNT_MAX >> > >> > Since I have not seen examples of such checks, I thought that this is >> > acceptable. Sorry once again. I have not tried to hide these changes. >> >> The current ucount code does check for overflow and fails the increment >> in every case. >> >> So arguably it will be a regression and inferior error handling behavior >> if the code switches to the ``better'' refcount_t data structure. >> >> I originally didn't use refcount_t because silently saturating and not >> bothering to handle the error makes me uncomfortable. >> >> Not having to acquire the ucounts_lock every time seems nice. Perhaps >> the path forward would be to start with stupid/correct code that always >> takes the ucounts_lock for every increment of ucounts->count, that is >> later replaced with something more optimal. >> >> Not impacting performance in the non-namespace cases and having good >> performance in the other cases is a fundamental requirement of merging >> code like this. > > Did I understand your suggestion correctly that you suggest to use > spin_lock for atomic_read and atomic_inc ? > > If so, then we are already incrementing the counter under ucounts_lock. > > ... > if (atomic_read(&ucounts->count) == INT_MAX) > ucounts = NULL; > else > atomic_inc(&ucounts->count); > spin_unlock_irq(&ucounts_lock); > return ucounts; > > something like this ? Yes. But without atomics. Something a bit more like: > ... > if (ucounts->count == INT_MAX) > ucounts = NULL; > else > ucounts->count++; > spin_unlock_irq(&ucounts_lock); > return ucounts; I do believe at some point we will want to say using the spin_lock for ucounts->count is cumbersome, and suboptimal and we want to change it to get a better performing implementation. Just for getting the semantics correct we should be able to use just ucounts_lock for locking. Then when everything is working we can profile and optimize the code. I just don't want figuring out what is needed to get hung up over little details that we can change later. Eric