[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210121160742.evd3632lepfytlxb@example.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2021 17:07:42 +0100
From: Alexey Gladkov <gladkov.alexey@...il.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
io-uring <io-uring@...r.kernel.org>,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
Linux Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 1/8] Use refcount_t for ucounts reference counting
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 09:50:34AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >> The current ucount code does check for overflow and fails the increment
> >> in every case.
> >>
> >> So arguably it will be a regression and inferior error handling behavior
> >> if the code switches to the ``better'' refcount_t data structure.
> >>
> >> I originally didn't use refcount_t because silently saturating and not
> >> bothering to handle the error makes me uncomfortable.
> >>
> >> Not having to acquire the ucounts_lock every time seems nice. Perhaps
> >> the path forward would be to start with stupid/correct code that always
> >> takes the ucounts_lock for every increment of ucounts->count, that is
> >> later replaced with something more optimal.
> >>
> >> Not impacting performance in the non-namespace cases and having good
> >> performance in the other cases is a fundamental requirement of merging
> >> code like this.
> >
> > Did I understand your suggestion correctly that you suggest to use
> > spin_lock for atomic_read and atomic_inc ?
> >
> > If so, then we are already incrementing the counter under ucounts_lock.
> >
> > ...
> > if (atomic_read(&ucounts->count) == INT_MAX)
> > ucounts = NULL;
> > else
> > atomic_inc(&ucounts->count);
> > spin_unlock_irq(&ucounts_lock);
> > return ucounts;
> >
> > something like this ?
>
> Yes. But without atomics. Something a bit more like:
> > ...
> > if (ucounts->count == INT_MAX)
> > ucounts = NULL;
> > else
> > ucounts->count++;
> > spin_unlock_irq(&ucounts_lock);
> > return ucounts;
This is the original code.
> I do believe at some point we will want to say using the spin_lock for
> ucounts->count is cumbersome, and suboptimal and we want to change it to
> get a better performing implementation.
>
> Just for getting the semantics correct we should be able to use just
> ucounts_lock for locking. Then when everything is working we can
> profile and optimize the code.
>
> I just don't want figuring out what is needed to get hung up over little
> details that we can change later.
OK. So I will drop this my change for now.
--
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.
