From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1751789AbdEMGzU (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Sat, 13 May 2017 02:55:20 -0400
Received: from mail-lf0-f65.google.com ([209.85.215.65]:34478 "EHLO
        mail-lf0-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1750935AbdEMGzS (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Sat, 13 May 2017 02:55:18 -0400
Date: Sat, 13 May 2017 09:55:14 +0300
From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>
To: Andrei Vagin <avagin@virtuozzo.com>
Cc: Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        kernel list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>, akpm@linuxfoundation.org,
        xemul@virtuozzo.com, Michael Kerrisk-manpages <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>,
        avagin@openvz.org, jbaron@akamai.com,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Subject: Re: [patch v4 resend 2/2] kcmp: Add KCMP_EPOLL_TFD mode to compare
 epoll target files
Message-ID: <20170513065514.GE1881@uranus.lan>
References: <20170424154423.511592110@gmail.com>
 <CAG48ez33xco_cHeaHYg2TOCquosbrAStnHikBDZ89No6c7E0Kg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170512225340.GD1881@uranus.lan>
 <20170513014508.GA21900@outlook.office365.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170513014508.GA21900@outlook.office365.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.0 (2017-02-23)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 06:45:09PM -0700, Andrei Vagin wrote:
> On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 01:53:40AM +0300, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> > On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 12:41:30AM +0200, Jann Horn wrote:
> > > [resending as plaintext]
> > > 
> > > I realize that the existing kcmp code has the same issue, but:
> > > 
> > > Why are you not taking a reference to filp or filp_tgt? This can end up
> > > performing a comparison between a pointer to a freed struct file and a
> > > pointer to a struct file that was allocated afterwards, right? So it can
> > > return a false "is equal" result when the two files aren't actually the same
> > > if one of the target tasks is running? This looks like it unnecessarily
> > > exposes information about whether an allocation reuses the memory of
> > > a previously freed allocation.
> > 
> > It work with unlocked data on purpose for speed sake. Moreover even
> > if we grap a reference it is valid _only_ during comparision operation,
> > next we drop ref and it can be easily freed by os. Thus it's up to
> > a caller to keep references to files/task and other resources used.
> 
> Looks like we can take rcu_read_lock() to guarantee that these objects
> will not be freed, and rcu_read_lock() should not affect perfomance too much.

Rather they should be get_file_rcu/fput. Still I'm not convinced we need it,
but fine will update both: plain KCMP_FILE and KCMP_EPOLL_TFD since it won't
hurt performance.