Re: [PATCH] cred: Use RCU primitives to access RCU pointers

[Amol Grover <frextrite@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Feb 05, 2020 at 08:32:51PM -0500, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 03:14:56PM +0100, Jann Horn wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 7:57 AM Amol Grover <frextrite@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 08:09:17PM +0100, Jann Horn wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 6:04 PM Amol Grover <frextrite@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 10:30:19AM +0100, Jann Horn wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 8:28 AM Amol Grover <frextrite@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > task_struct.cred and task_struct.real_cred are annotated by __rcu,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > task_struct.cred doesn't actually have RCU semantics though, see
> > > > > > commit d7852fbd0f0423937fa287a598bfde188bb68c22. For task_struct.cred,
> > > > > > it would probably be more correct to remove the __rcu annotation?
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Jann,
> > > > >
> > > > > I went through the commit you mentioned. If I understand it correctly,
> > > > > ->cred was not being accessed concurrently (via RCU), hence, a non_rcu
> > > > > flag was introduced, which determined if the clean-up should wait for
> > > > > RCU grace-periods or not. And since, the changes were 'thread local'
> > > > > there was no need to wait for an entire RCU GP to elapse.
> > > >
> > > > Yeah.
> > > >
> > > > > The commit too, as you said, mentions the removal of __rcu annotation.
> > > > > However, simply removing the annotation won't work, as there are quite a
> > > > > few instances where RCU primitives are used. Even get_current_cred()
> > > > > uses RCU APIs to get a reference to ->cred.
> > > >
> > > > Luckily, there aren't too many places that directly access ->cred,
> > > > since luckily there are helper functions like get_current_cred() that
> > > > will do it for you. Grepping through the kernel, I see:
> > [...]
> > > > So actually, the number of places that already don't use RCU accessors
> > > > is much higher than the number of places that use them.
> > > >
> > > > > So, currently, maybe we
> > > > > should continue to use RCU APIs and leave the __rcu annotation in?
> > > > > (Until someone who takes it on himself to remove __rcu annotation and
> > > > > fix all the instances). Does that sound good? Or do you want me to
> > > > > remove __rcu annotation and get the process started?
> > > >
> > > > I don't think it's a good idea to add more uses of RCU APIs for
> > > > ->cred; you shouldn't "fix" warnings by making the code more wrong.
> > > >
> > > > If you want to fix this, I think it would be relatively easy to fix
> > > > this properly - as far as I can tell, there are only seven places that
> > > > you'll have to change, although you may have to split it up into three
> > > > patches.
> > >
> > > Thank you for the detailed analysis. I'll try my best and send you a
> > > patch.
> 
> Amol, Jann, if I understand the discussion correctly, objects ->cred
> point (the subjective creds) are never (or never need to be) RCU-managed.
> This makes sense in light of the commit Jann pointed out
> (d7852fbd0f0423937fa287a598bfde188bb68c22).
> 
> How about the following diff as a starting point?
> 
> 1. Remove all ->cred accessing happening through RCU primitive.
> 2. Remove __rcu from task_struct ->cred
> 3. Also I removed the whole non_rcu flag, and introduced a new put_cred_non_rcu() API
>    which places that task-synchronously use ->cred can overwrite. Callers
>    doing such accesses like access() can use this API instead.
> 
> I have only build tested the below diff and it is likely buggy but Amol you
> can use it as a starting point, or we can discuss more on this thread.
> 

Thank you for starting this Joel! This will make our lives easier! I'll
go through it once and get back to Jann's latest reply.

Thanks
Amol