From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752300AbbHELxX (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Aug 2015 07:53:23 -0400 Received: from mail-wi0-f172.google.com ([209.85.212.172]:34035 "EHLO mail-wi0-f172.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752161AbbHELxV (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Aug 2015 07:53:21 -0400 Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 14:53:19 +0300 From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Andrew Morton , Kees Cook , "Eric W. Biederman" , Oleg Nesterov , David Howells , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra , "Kirill A. Shutemov" , Rik van Riel , Vladimir Davydov , Ricky Zhou , Julien Tinnes Subject: Re: [PATCH] user_ns: use correct check for single-threadedness Message-ID: <20150805115319.GB25784@node.dhcp.inet.fi> References: <20150728171500.GA2871@www.outflux.net> <20150728143504.5aa996ba5955522a19c2d5f1@linux-foundation.org> <20150728221111.GA23391@node.dhcp.inet.fi> <20150805113854.GA9110@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150805113854.GA9110@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23.1 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 01:38:54PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 02:35:04PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > On Tue, 28 Jul 2015 10:15:00 -0700 Kees Cook wrote: > > > > > > > From: Ricky Zhou > > > > > > > > Checking mm_users > 1 does not mean a process is multithreaded. For > > > > example, reading /proc/PID/maps temporarily increments mm_users, allowing > > > > other processes to (accidentally) interfere with unshare() calls. > > > > > > > > This fixes observed failures of unshare(CLONE_NEWUSER) incorrectly > > > > returning EINVAL if another processes happened to be simultaneously > > > > reading the maps file. > > > > > > Yikes. current_is_single_threaded() is expensive. Are we sure this > > > isn't going to kill someone's workload? > > > > It's expensive only if mm_users > 1. We will go to for_each_process() only > > if somebody outside of the process grabs mm_users references (like reading > > /proc/PID/maps). Or if it called it from multithreaded application. > > It's considerably expensive: > > rcu_read_lock(); > for_each_process(p) { > do { > ... > } while_each_thread(p, t); > } > > > 'only' if it's multi-threaded, i.e. when some workload cares so much about > performance that it uses multiple threads? > > Can you see the contradiction there? I can. man 2 unshare: CLONE_NEWUSER requires that the calling process is not threaded; The workload cares so much about performance that it ignores API requirements. Some slow down looks like a fair price to me. -- Kirill A. Shutemov