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=-0.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, 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 4C332C352A2 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 13:10:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18DF0214AF for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 13:10:07 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="vMNJk8Mf" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727747AbgBFNKG (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Feb 2020 08:10:06 -0500 Received: from mail-pj1-f65.google.com ([209.85.216.65]:40802 "EHLO mail-pj1-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727602AbgBFNKF (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Feb 2020 08:10:05 -0500 Received: by mail-pj1-f65.google.com with SMTP id 12so2531797pjb.5 for ; Thu, 06 Feb 2020 05:10:03 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=y4Pa1L5RARQgqvzqz59p+CvaGETvYZ1UCLM+Mc5CN84=; b=vMNJk8MfX7MLWGNRzhL/SmImsM+kmBcpOPmAlsdIRKsmSKG9yfmkajIS9O6Xs7iTOD RO807KsIZSZff/TYq/lxeYvIlIpfghegRdOIXk/DMH0+m6y2h/fWmV//y6lYeqJt2KYG NGYhXSrpFHYZSQHsLhr3mGaY8V6OpaloCpHlnVWoXcEnENl+7tSyuG8Za5tuXyu8btMZ JWhcJGT/zZNQq62O/S/Ih3VI/eB7g+z7yEhuddQ9JwTP3f3xVx7nIK1JSMD3lQicJ/Oc /ATPSFnPEhtn6Rk8+slgmgP2zgBQKiZVe6Xv2E8m/6loSQDTtQj/PRpibC8VCpff2+Bs DoHw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=y4Pa1L5RARQgqvzqz59p+CvaGETvYZ1UCLM+Mc5CN84=; b=rKVI+j7xPNY2PxOLbdejNLdfaTdyKM3b06bslPaawa7ev9CJU5zRbj9Pr3YVqhEHDK Vs6VqgjuUwKPzbvXhqy27JtOT2Y0E3PkNvd9m784qeA2GLCFOEA9pozr1s0fqqhoXHiE Zu4u1u+LIq3Y9F4kSsAqm8gVPAcDOM5tCCXeNbTQl72F4PTHS2ZPU7lu+UFh67MQxfXe UfMySum+x9dtJW1N56cL7SZeKhoPQ2ZuyMVzG2/0+s/BShXpet3QMKVoobyp9xYtx6wx o2QZOOOpJkhYGBYTrSINJuEIbyHLnxAM6D0Fy77XwqGSFW0OdTF66MfzJuFkYh4n6I5i ItpA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXJv7CYLMN8aBz++e8SlFFiAUTLbEHJ9XKKEV5UHWecRVFStyXT 7yJsNBIqCvJb4n8AMcvJza8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwxOLxWA1l6OErju8aIUZL86BPGQWlMbFRKo5hSrHBWS6v4iWDEq2Kdys62jBSDVrAnzH+DbQ== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:9f88:: with SMTP id g8mr3709690plq.100.1580994603439; Thu, 06 Feb 2020 05:10:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from workstation-portable ([103.211.17.39]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t15sm2370459pgr.60.2020.02.06.05.09.58 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 06 Feb 2020 05:10:02 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2020 18:39:55 +0530 From: Amol Grover To: Joel Fernandes Cc: Jann Horn , David Howells , Shakeel Butt , James Morris , Oleg Nesterov , Kees Cook , Thomas Gleixner , kernel list , linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Madhuparna Bhowmik , "Paul E . McKenney" Subject: Re: [PATCH] cred: Use RCU primitives to access RCU pointers Message-ID: <20200206130955.GA3917@workstation-portable> References: <20200128072740.21272-1-frextrite@gmail.com> <20200128170426.GA10277@workstation-portable> <20200129065738.GA17486@workstation-portable> <20200206013251.GC55522@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200206013251.GC55522@google.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 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 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 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