From: Nicolai Stange <nstange@suse.de>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc: Chen Wandun <chenwandun@huawei.com>,
rkrcmar@redhat.com, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com,
bp@alien8.de, hpa@zytor.com, x86@kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Nicolai Stange <nstange@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH next] KVM: Fix debugfs_simple_attr.cocci warnings
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2020 11:29:46 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87h816nsv9.fsf@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4f193d99-ee9b-5217-c2f6-3a8a96bf1534@redhat.com> (Paolo Bonzini's message of "Tue, 7 Jan 2020 15:01:54 +0100")
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> writes:
> On 24/12/19 02:41, Chen Wandun wrote:
>> Use DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE rather than DEFINE_SIMPLE_ATTRIBUTE
>> for debugfs files.
>>
>> Semantic patch information:
>> Rationale: DEFINE_SIMPLE_ATTRIBUTE + debugfs_create_file()
>> imposes some significant overhead as compared to
>> DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE + debugfs_create_file_unsafe().
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Chen Wandun <chenwandun@huawei.com>
>
> This patch was sent probably already two or three times, and every time
> I've not been able to understand what is this significant overhead.
As you correctly stated below, the overhead is one
kmalloc(sizeof(struct file_operations)) per opened debugfs file
(i.e. one per debugfs struct file instance). struct file_operations is
equivalent to 33 unsigned longs, so it might not be seen as that
"significant", but it isn't small either.
> With DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE:
>
> - the fops member is debugfs_open_proxy_file_operations, which calls
> replace_fops so that the fops->read member is debugfs_attr_read on the
> opened file
>
> - debugfs_attr_read does
>
> ret = debugfs_file_get(dentry);
> if (unlikely(ret))
> return ret;
> ret = simple_attr_read(file, buf, len, ppos);
> debugfs_file_put(dentry);
>
> With DEFINE_SIMPLE_ATTRIBUTE:
>
> - the fops member is debugfs_full_proxy_open, and after
> __full_proxy_fops_init fops->read is initialized to full_proxy_read
>
> - full_proxy_read does
>
> r = debugfs_file_get(dentry);
> if (unlikely(r))
> return r;
> real_fops = debugfs_real_fops(filp);
> r = real_fops->name(args);
> debugfs_file_put(dentry);
> return r;
>
> where real_fops->name is again just simple_attr_read.
>
> So the overhead is really just one kzalloc every time the file is
> opened.
Yes.
> I could just apply the patch, but it wouldn't solve the main issue,
> which is that there is a function with a scary name
> ("debugfs_create_file_unsafe") that can be used in very common
> circumstances (with DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE.
Agreed, the naming is a bit poor. "debugfs_create_file_no_proxy" or the
like would perhaps have been a better choice.
> Therefore, we could
> instead fix the root cause and avoid using the scary API:
>
> - remove from the .cocci patch the change from debugfs_create_file to
> debugfs_create_file_unsafe. Only switch DEFINE_SIMPLE_ATTRIBUTE to
> DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE
>
> - change debugfs_create_file to automatically detect the "easy" case
> that does not need proxying of fops; something like this:
>
> const struct file_operations *proxy_fops;
>
> /*
> * Any struct file_operations defined by means of
> * DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE() is protected against file removals
> * and thus does not need proxying of read and write fops.
> */
> if (!fops ||
> (fops->llseek == no_llseek &&
> ((!fops->read && !fops->read_iter) ||
> fops->read == debugfs_attr_read) &&
> ((!fops->write && !fops->write_iter) ||
> fops->write == debugfs_attr_write) &&
> !fops->poll && !fops->unlocked_ioctl)
> return debugfs_create_file_unsafe(name, mode, parent,
> data, fops);
>
> /* These are not supported by __full_proxy_fops_init. */
> WARN_ON_ONCE(fops->read_iter || fops->write_iter);
> return __debugfs_create_file(name, mode, parent, data,
> &debugfs_full_proxy_file_operations,
> fops);
>
> CCing Nicolai Stange who first introduced debugfs_create_file_unsafe.
I'm not strictly against your proposal, but I somewhat dislike the idea
of adding runtime checks for special cases to work around a historic
issue. Also, we'd either have to touch the ~63 existing call sites of
debugfs_create_file_unsafe() again or had to live with inconsistent
debugfs usage patterns.
AFAICT, your approach wouldn't really put a relieve on maintainers
wrt. patch count as the cocci check for the DEFINE_SIMPLE_ATTRIBUTE ->
DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE conversion would still be needed.
And then there's grepability: right now it would be possible to find all
fully proxied debugfs files by means of "git grep 'debugfs_file_create('".
I'm not saying I'm about to convert these, but in theory it could be
done easily.
How about introducing a
#define debugfs_create_attr debugfs_create_file_unsafe
instead to make those
s/DEFINE_SIMPLE_ATTRIBUTE/DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE/
patches look less scary?
Ideally, for the sake of additional safety, DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE
could be made to wrap the file_operations within something like a
struct debugfs_attr_file_operations and debugfs_create_attr() would
take that instead of a plain file_operations. But again, this would
require touching the existing users of debugfs_create_file_unsafe()...
So I'm not sure it would be worth it.
c
Thanks,
Nicolai
--
SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
(HRB 36809, AG Nürnberg), GF: Felix Imendörffer
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-01-08 10:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-12-24 1:41 [PATCH next] KVM: Fix debugfs_simple_attr.cocci warnings Chen Wandun
2020-01-07 14:01 ` Paolo Bonzini
2020-01-08 10:29 ` Nicolai Stange [this message]
2020-01-09 9:17 ` Paolo Bonzini
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87h816nsv9.fsf@suse.de \
--to=nstange@suse.de \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=chenwandun@huawei.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=rkrcmar@redhat.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox