|
Message-ID: <87pnejf6fz.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2020 22:37:52 -0600 From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> Cc: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, 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>, 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>, 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> Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 07/11] proc: flush task dcache entries from all procfs instances Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> writes: > On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 1:48 PM Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com> wrote: >> >> The good news is proc_flush_task isn't exactly called from process exit. >> proc_flush_task is called during zombie clean up. AKA release_task. > > Yeah, that at least avoids some of the nasty locking while dying debug problems. > > But the one I was more worried about was actually the lock contention > issue with lots of processes. The lock is basically a single global > lock in many situations - yes, it's technically per-ns, but in a lot > of cases you really only have one namespace anyway. > > And we've had problems with global locks in this area before, notably > the one you call out: > >> Further after proc_flush_task does it's thing the code goes >> and does "write_lock_irq(&task_list_lock);" > > Yeah, so it's not introducing a new issue, but it is potentially > making something we already know is bad even worse. > >> What would be downside of having a mutex for a list of proc superblocks? >> A mutex that is taken for both reading and writing the list. > > That's what the original patch actually was, and I was hoping we could > avoid that thing. > > An rwsem would be possibly better, since most cases by far are likely > about reading. > > And yes, I'm very aware of the task_list_lock, but it's literally why > I don't want to make a new one. > > I'm _hoping_ we can some day come up with something better than > task_list_lock. Yes. I understand that. I occassionally play with ideas, and converted all of proc to rcu to help with situation but I haven't come up with anything clearly better. All of this is why I was really hoping we could have a change in strategy and see if we can make the shrinker be able to better prune proc inodes. I think I have an alternate idea that could work. Add some extra code into proc_task_readdir, that would look for dentries that no longer point to tasks and d_invalidate them. With the same logic probably being called from a few more places as well like proc_pid_readdir, proc_task_lookup, and proc_pid_lookup. We could even optimize it and have a process died flag we set in the superblock. That would would batch up the freeing work until the next time someone reads from proc in a way that would create more dentries. So it would prevent dentries from reaped zombies from growing without bound. Hmm. Given the existence of proc_fill_cache it would really be a good idea if readdir and lookup performed some of the freeing work as well. As on readdir we always populate the dcache for all of the directory entries. I am booked solid for the next little while but if no one beats me to it I will try and code something like that up where at least readdir looks for and invalidates stale dentries. Eric
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.