From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91C7EC352A2 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 16:49:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from hemlock.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [140.211.166.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 590EC218AC for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 16:49:44 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=joelfernandes.org header.i=@joelfernandes.org header.b="U4I19q1P" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 590EC218AC Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=joelfernandes.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-mentees-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hemlock.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1142987B82; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 16:49:44 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from hemlock.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id D9+yT+OJEI6m; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 16:49:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.linuxfoundation.org (lf-lists.osuosl.org [140.211.9.56]) by hemlock.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5AA2879A3; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 16:49:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lf-lists.osuosl.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2F9FC0881; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 16:49:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from fraxinus.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FE9CC013E for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 16:49:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fraxinus.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96481849A3 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 16:49:41 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from fraxinus.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uVXlOOCFlDtZ for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 16:49:41 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-pj1-f66.google.com (mail-pj1-f66.google.com [209.85.216.66]) by fraxinus.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F324E8487B for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 16:49:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pj1-f66.google.com with SMTP id j17so220240pjz.3 for ; Thu, 06 Feb 2020 08:49:40 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelfernandes.org; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=F2D9TyKC428lbsn4cOSkHZILE4+aGh4V0YXpbG4yTNE=; b=U4I19q1PYKZgogEkFwqG/WZCgBsYOMFfbDIYFIVQJJ03KIP/ldqwtEwKxnpiu51/el ZpQP69wgGSBlgFvEW0v/o31/EwZg8bht11Yu9ENzxaMBARNyIrgHsMLoWJWH6ANVP+xl 0ugwC1auDwF6n2+cy1JPmmSa3M1WXj+RSYeJ8= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=F2D9TyKC428lbsn4cOSkHZILE4+aGh4V0YXpbG4yTNE=; b=DiYa/hFSdfbApjCWn/DYSLgLZKCv2zbM2a+7Pta7i0oDbYx4SjAVE9XD6e/EerE2fs SnVyAzlG6EjQQlaRwuwUQpmYrUQK0pYGDqRGgO03uj1CXgNQkaJjJ/XUxFKNkjDA0SlW zRXzjp8Y6FvVDNJ9+MRBowW4GwdGlK5znPEof+nI9L9Sqp326YazELFEq93qDyFlHx7l x3hM9NKNVNosPOcOqJOTPXccDTiUg9bEc97jGg5g4GODkl0cdYvJqJJK6D7nb7n0ujGT 3Gh/YAK0y3x2AsDrW0CdkJ++IbL36NRMTPuZDXMwYhpnSa6ME8mFgEsWYojTskUYggQq k8VQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUGytfBDSVPGGoTKXcr6E8EglD88/Us7qw1dZYJwqiJdF5JmPO4 2SZJyQjEB5LfjMcZ4cbAW9Ijeg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzI3O0gS5rpCI7xJ8epJrB+LE43OEPQuIGFwJhT965v8/YZdDbXHbqOWzlQFWeDeuNtumnyMg== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:d985:: with SMTP id d5mr5702550pjv.73.1581007780413; Thu, 06 Feb 2020 08:49:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([2620:15c:6:12:9c46:e0da:efbf:69cc]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j21sm3965775pji.13.2020.02.06.08.49.39 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 06 Feb 2020 08:49:39 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2020 11:49:38 -0500 From: Joel Fernandes To: Jann Horn Message-ID: <20200206164938.GD55522@google.com> References: <20200128072740.21272-1-frextrite@gmail.com> <20200128170426.GA10277@workstation-portable> <20200129065738.GA17486@workstation-portable> <20200206013251.GC55522@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Cc: Kees Cook , "Paul E . McKenney" , Oleg Nesterov , James Morris , kernel list , David Howells , Shakeel Butt , Thomas Gleixner , linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Linux-kernel-mentees] [PATCH] cred: Use RCU primitives to access RCU pointers X-BeenThere: linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: linux-kernel-mentees-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org Sender: "Linux-kernel-mentees" On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 12:28:42PM +0100, Jann Horn wrote: [snip] > > > > > > > task_struct.cred doesn't actually have RCU semantics though, see > > > > > > > commit d7852fbd0f0423937fa287a598bfde188bb68c22. For task_struct.cred, > > > > > > > it would probably be more correct to remove the __rcu annotation? > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Jann, > > > > > > > > > > > > I went through the commit you mentioned. If I understand it correctly, > > > > > > ->cred was not being accessed concurrently (via RCU), hence, a non_rcu > > > > > > flag was introduced, which determined if the clean-up should wait for > > > > > > RCU grace-periods or not. And since, the changes were 'thread local' > > > > > > there was no need to wait for an entire RCU GP to elapse. > > > > > > > > > > Yeah. > > > > > > > > > > > The commit too, as you said, mentions the removal of __rcu annotation. > > > > > > However, simply removing the annotation won't work, as there are quite a > > > > > > few instances where RCU primitives are used. Even get_current_cred() > > > > > > uses RCU APIs to get a reference to ->cred. > > > > > > > > > > Luckily, there aren't too many places that directly access ->cred, > > > > > since luckily there are helper functions like get_current_cred() that > > > > > will do it for you. Grepping through the kernel, I see: > > > [...] > > > > > So actually, the number of places that already don't use RCU accessors > > > > > is much higher than the number of places that use them. > > > > > > > > > > > So, currently, maybe we > > > > > > should continue to use RCU APIs and leave the __rcu annotation in? > > > > > > (Until someone who takes it on himself to remove __rcu annotation and > > > > > > fix all the instances). Does that sound good? Or do you want me to > > > > > > remove __rcu annotation and get the process started? > > > > > > > > > > I don't think it's a good idea to add more uses of RCU APIs for > > > > > ->cred; you shouldn't "fix" warnings by making the code more wrong. > > > > > > > > > > If you want to fix this, I think it would be relatively easy to fix > > > > > this properly - as far as I can tell, there are only seven places that > > > > > you'll have to change, although you may have to split it up into three > > > > > patches. > > > > > > > > Thank you for the detailed analysis. I'll try my best and send you a > > > > patch. > > > > Amol, Jann, if I understand the discussion correctly, objects ->cred > > point (the subjective creds) are never (or never need to be) RCU-managed. > > This makes sense in light of the commit Jann pointed out > > (d7852fbd0f0423937fa287a598bfde188bb68c22). > > > > How about the following diff as a starting point? > > > > 1. Remove all ->cred accessing happening through RCU primitive. > > Sounds good. > > > 2. Remove __rcu from task_struct ->cred > > Sounds good. > > > 3. Also I removed the whole non_rcu flag, and introduced a new put_cred_non_rcu() API > > which places that task-synchronously use ->cred can overwrite. Callers > > doing such accesses like access() can use this API instead. > > That's wrong, don't do that. > > ->cred is a reference without RCU semantics, ->real_cred is a > reference with RCU semantics. If there have never been any references > with RCU semantics to a specific instance of struct cred, then that > instance can indeed be freed without an RCU grace period. But it would > be possible for some filesystem code to take a reference to > current->cred, and assign it to some pointer with RCU semantics > somewhere, then drop that reference with put_cred() immediately before > you reach put_cred_non_rcu(); with the result that despite using > put_cred(), the other side doesn't get RCU semantics. > > Just leave the whole ->non_rcu thing exactly as it was. Can you point to an example in the kernel that actually uses ->cred this way? I'm just curious. That is, reads task's ->cred pointer, and assigns it to an RCU managed pointer? I think such an example would be the point that the commit you mentioned addresses. The commit basically says "as long as nobody does get_cred() on the task_struct ->cred, we are good, but if somebody does do it, then we have to deferred-free it". But I could not find such an example. That said, I agree the removal of non_rcu can be considered out of scope for this patch. thanks, - Joel _______________________________________________ Linux-kernel-mentees mailing list Linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-kernel-mentees