Linux-Security-Module Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / Atom feed
From: John Johansen <john.johansen@canonical.com>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Cc: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
	James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
	tglx@linutronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] apparmor: Use a memory pool instead per-CPU caches
Date: Thu, 2 May 2019 12:33:04 -0700
Message-ID: <88ef3979-5821-886f-3b53-c16fa325048e@canonical.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190502105158.2hluemukrdz5hbus@linutronix.de>

On 5/2/19 3:51 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2019-05-01 14:29:17 [-0700], John Johansen wrote:
>> On 4/30/19 7:47 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>>> On 2019-04-28 16:56:59 [-0700], John Johansen wrote:
>>>> So digging into why the history of the per cpu buffers in apparmor.
>>>> We used to do buffer allocations via kmalloc and there were a few reasons
>>>> for the switch 
>>>>
>>>> * speed/lockless: speaks for it self, mediation is already slow enough
>>>
>>> it is shared among all CPUs but it is a small/quick operation to
>>> add/return a buffer.
>>>
>> I wouldn't exactly call taking a lock speedy. Getting an available buffer
>> or returning it is indeed quick. The allocation fall back not so much.
> 
> Based on testing it happens only in the beginning. We could also start
> with 2,3,4 pre allocated buffers or so.
> My testing was most likely limited and I did not exceed two.
> 

yeah lets have a few preallocated

>>>> * some buffer allocations had to be done with GFP_ATOMIC, making them
>>>>   more likely to fail. Since we fail closed that means failure would
>>>>   block access. This actually became a serious problem in a couple
>>>>   places. Switching to per cpu buffers and blocking pre-empt was
>>>>   the solution.
>>>
>>> GFP_KERNEL is allowed to use IO/SWAP and ATOMIC has emergency pools. The
>>> new approach won't return a NULL pointer, simply spin to either allocate
>>> new memory or get one which was just returned.
>>>
>>
>> yeah, I am not really a fan of a potential infinite loop trying to allocate
>> memory. It may be worth retrying once or twice but potentially infinitely
>> spinning on failed allocation really isn't acceptable.
> 
> It shouldn't spin infinitely because even if kmalloc() does not return
> any memory, one of the other CPUs should return their buffer at some
> point. However, if you don't like it I could add two retries and return
> NULL + fixup callers. On the other hand if the other CPUs BUG() with the
> buffers then yes, we may spin.
> So limited retries it is?
> 
yes please


      parent reply index

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-04-05 13:34 Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2019-04-05 13:34 ` [PATCH 2/2] apparmor: Switch to GFP_KERNEL where possible Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2019-05-07 19:57   ` John Johansen
2019-04-15 10:50 ` [PATCH 1/2] apparmor: Use a memory pool instead per-CPU caches Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2019-04-28 23:56 ` John Johansen
2019-04-30 14:47   ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2019-05-01 21:29     ` John Johansen
2019-05-02 10:51       ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2019-05-02 13:17         ` Tetsuo Handa
2019-05-02 13:47           ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2019-05-02 14:10             ` Tetsuo Handa
2019-05-03 11:48               ` [PATCH v2] " Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2019-05-03 11:51                 ` [PATCH v3] " Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2019-05-03 12:41                   ` Tetsuo Handa
2019-05-03 14:12                     ` [PATCH v4] " Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2019-05-07 19:57                       ` John Johansen
2019-10-02  8:59                         ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2019-10-02 15:47                           ` John Johansen
2019-10-02 15:52                             ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2019-05-02 19:33         ` John Johansen [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publically 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=88ef3979-5821-886f-3b53-c16fa325048e@canonical.com \
    --to=john.johansen@canonical.com \
    --cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
    --cc=jmorris@namei.org \
    --cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=serge@hallyn.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    /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

Linux-Security-Module Archive on lore.kernel.org

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/linux-security-module/0 linux-security-module/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 linux-security-module linux-security-module/ https://lore.kernel.org/linux-security-module \
		linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org
	public-inbox-index linux-security-module

Example config snippet for mirrors

Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.linux-security-module


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git