From: Paul Moore <paul.moore@hp.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov>,
James Carter <jwcart2@tycho.nsa.gov>,
James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>
Subject: Re: [bug] very high non-preempt latency in context_struct_compute_av()
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 17:11:42 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200706041711.42755.paul.moore@hp.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070604112745.GA26350@elte.hu>
On Monday, June 4 2007 7:27:45 am Ingo Molnar wrote:
> a simple ssh login triggers a ~130 msecs non-preemptible latency even
> with CONFIG_PREEMPT enabled, on a fast Core2Duo CPU (!).
>
> the latency is caused by a _very_ long loop in the SELinux code:
>
> sshd-4828 0.N.. 465894us : avtab_search_node
> (context_struct_compute_av) sshd-4828 0.N.. 465895us : cond_compute_av
> (context_struct_compute_av) sshd-4828 0.N.. 465895us : avtab_search_node
> (cond_compute_av) sshd-4828 0.N.. 465895us : avtab_search_node
> (context_struct_compute_av) sshd-4828 0.N.. 465896us : cond_compute_av
> (context_struct_compute_av) sshd-4828 0.N.. 465896us : avtab_search_node
> (cond_compute_av) sshd-4828 0.N.. 465896us : avtab_search_node
> (context_struct_compute_av) sshd-4828 0.N.. 465896us : cond_compute_av
> (context_struct_compute_av) sshd-4828 0.N.. 465896us : avtab_search_node
> (cond_compute_av)
>
> it is triggered like this:
>
> sshd-4828 0..s. 462986us : tasklet_action (__do_softirq)
> sshd-4828 0..s. 462986us : rcu_process_callbacks (tasklet_action)
> sshd-4828 0..s. 462986us : __rcu_process_callbacks
> (rcu_process_callbacks) sshd-4828 0..s. 462987us : __rcu_process_callbacks
> (rcu_process_callbacks) sshd-4828 0D.s. 462987us : _local_bh_enable
> (__do_softirq)
> sshd-4828 0DN.. 462987us : idle_cpu (irq_exit)
> sshd-4828 0.N.. 462988us : avtab_search_node
> (context_struct_compute_av) sshd-4828 0.N.. 462989us : cond_compute_av
> (context_struct_compute_av)
>
> {snip}
>
> The distribution is Fedora 7, v2.6.21 (but also happens in recent -git)
> and a simple 'ssh localhost' login is enough to trigger this. It
> triggers every time and this is causing audio skipping in certain apps.
> It is even visible in glxgears smoothness: a small 'bump' is visible in
> the otherwise smooth rotation of glxgears. Enabling CONFIG_PREEMPT does
> not fix this issue as the function runs under spinlocks. (enabling
> CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT in -rt fixes the issue - but that still leaves us with
> the huge 130 msecs cost of that function.)
I'm not an expert on the SELinux security server guts like the other people on
the To/CC line of this thread, but here are my two cents on the issue above.
>From what I can tell the nasty loop that is taking so long is the actual
access vector lookup which determines if the subject has access to the object
(i.e. can user/application X access resource Y on the system). While it may
be possible to optimize this code I wonder if a quicker/easier solution would
be to refactor the lock. At present SELinux uses a read/write spinlock to
protect the policy stored in the kernel with macros to take and release the
lock, POLICY_{RD,WR}LOCK and POLICY_{RD,WR}UNLOCK. From personal
observations as well as a quick check of the code, it appears that most of
the time we only want to read lock the policy and not write lock the policy -
a spinlock, even a read/write spinlock, seems a bit expensive here.
If we were to convert from a read/write spinlock to a RCU locking mechanism
would this solve the preemption problem (I'm not a lock expert either)? If
so, can anyone think of any reasons why converting the policy lock to RCU is
a bad idea (James, Stephen, the other James)?
--
paul moore
linux security @ hp
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-06-04 21:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-06-04 11:27 [bug] very high non-preempt latency in context_struct_compute_av() Ingo Molnar
2007-06-04 13:25 ` James Morris
2007-06-04 14:17 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-06-04 21:11 ` Paul Moore [this message]
2007-06-04 21:39 ` Stephen Smalley
2007-06-04 22:48 ` Paul Moore
2007-06-04 22:54 ` James Morris
2007-06-07 19:34 ` Stephen Smalley
2007-06-07 19:51 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-06-07 20:11 ` James Morris
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=200706041711.42755.paul.moore@hp.com \
--to=paul.moore@hp.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=jwcart2@tycho.nsa.gov \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=sds@tycho.nsa.gov \
/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