[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200127232352.s3mvvfkrta3i5h7w@comp-core-i7-2640m-0182e6>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2020 00:23:53 +0100
From: Alexey Gladkov <gladkov.alexey@...il.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Security Module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
Akinobu Mita <akinobu.mita@...il.com>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Daniel Micay <danielmicay@...il.com>,
Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@...il.com>,
"Dmitry V . Levin" <ldv@...linux.org>,
"Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"J . Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...chiereds.net>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 07/11] proc: flush task dcache entries from all procfs
instances
On Sat, Jan 25, 2020 at 10:45:25AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 25, 2020 at 5:06 AM Alexey Gladkov <gladkov.alexey@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > This allows to flush dcache entries of a task on multiple procfs mounts
> > per pid namespace.
>
> From a quick read-through, this is the only one I really react negatively to.
>
> The locking looks odd. It only seems to protect the new proc_mounts
> list, but then it's a whole big rwsem, and it's taken over all of
> proc_flush_task_mnt(), and the locking is exported to all over as a
> result of that - including the dummy functions for "there is no proc"
> case.
>
> And proc_flush_task_mnt() itself should need no locking over any of
> it, so it's all just for the silly looping over the list.
Thank you, I will rework this part.
> So
>
> (a) this looks fishy and feels wrong - I get a very strong feeling
> that the locking is wrong to begin with, and could/should have been
> done differently
>
> (b) all the locking should have been internal to /proc, and those
> wrappers shouldn't exist in a common header file (and certainly not
> for the non-proc case).
>
> Yes, (a) is just a feeling, and I don't have any great suggestions.
> Maybe make it an RCU list and use a spinlock for updating it?
I’m thinking, is it possible to get rid of proc_flush_task at all ?
Maybe we can try to flush dcache during readdir for example.
> But (b) is pretty much a non-starter in this form. Those wrappers
> shouldn't be in a globally exported core header file. No way.
>
> Linus
>
--
Rgrds, legion
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
