[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200213055527.GS23230@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 05:55:27 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
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
On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 10:37:52PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> 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.
First of all, that won't do a damn thing when nobody is accessing
given superblock. What's more, readdir in root of that procfs instance
is not enough - you need it in task/ of group leader.
What I don't understand is the insistence on getting those dentries
via dcache lookups. _IF_ we are willing to live with cacheline
contention (on ->d_lock of root dentry, if nothing else), why not
do the following:
* put all dentries of such directories ([0-9]* and [0-9]*/task/*)
into a list anchored in task_struct; have non-counting reference to
task_struct stored in them (might simplify part of get_proc_task() users,
BTW - avoids pid-to-task_struct lookups if we have a dentry and not just
the inode; many callers do)
* have ->d_release() remove from it (protecting per-task_struct lock
nested outside of all ->d_lock)
* on exit:
lock the (per-task_struct) list
while list is non-empty
pick the first dentry
remove from the list
sb = dentry->d_sb
try to bump sb->s_active (if non-zero, that is).
if failed
continue // move on to the next one - nothing to do here
grab ->d_lock
res = handle_it(dentry, &temp_list)
drop ->d_lock
unlock the list
if (!list_empty(&temp_list))
shrink_dentry_list(&temp_list)
if (res)
d_invalidate(dentry)
dput(dentry)
deactivate_super(sb)
lock the list
unlock the list
handle_it(dentry, temp_list) // ->d_lock held; that one should be in dcache.c
if ->d_count is negative // unlikely
return 0;
if ->d_count is positive,
increment ->d_count
return 1;
// OK, it's still alive, but ->d_count is 0
__d_drop // equivalent of d_invalidate in this case
if not on a shrink list // otherwise it's not our headache
if on lru list
d_lru_del
d_shrink_add dentry to temp_list
return 0;
And yeah, that'll dirty ->s_active for each procfs superblock that
has dentry for our process present in dcache. On exit()...
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.
