Re: [RFC PATCH] locks:Remove spinlock in unshare_files

Al Viro
2020-03-16T18:37:36Z

On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 02:39:16PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> > > diff --git a/kernel/fork.c b/kernel/fork.c
> > > index 60a1295..fe54600 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/fork.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/fork.c
> > > @@ -3041,9 +3041,7 @@ int unshare_files(struct files_struct **displaced)
> > > return error;
> > > }
> > > *displaced = task->files;
> > > - task_lock(task);
> > > - task->files = copy;
> > > - task_unlock(task);
> > > + WRITE_ONCE(task->files, copy);
> > > return 0;
> > > }
>
> AFAICT this is completely and utterly buggered.
>
> IFF task->files was lockless, like say RCU, then you'd still need
> smp_store_release(). But if we look at fs/file.c then everything uses
> task_lock() and removing it like the above is actively broken.

The problem is not fs/file.c; it's the code that does (read-only)
access to *other* threads' ->files. procfs, SAK, some cgroup
shite (pardon the redundancy)... All of those rely upon task_lock.

FWIW, having just grepped around, I'm worried about the crap io_uring
is pulling off - interplay with unshare(2) could be unpleasant.

In any case - task_lock in the code that assigns to ->files (and it's
not just unshare_files()) serves to protect the 3rd-party readers
(including get_files_struct()) from having the fucker taken apart
under them. It's not just freeing the thing - it's the entire
close_files().

And no, we do *NOT* want to convert everything to get_files_struct() +
being clever in it. I would rather have get_files_struct() taken
out and shot, TBH - the only real reason it hadn't been killed years
ago is the loop in proc_readfd_common()...

I'd prefer to have 3rd-party readers indicate their interest
in a way that would be distinguishable from normal references,
with close_files() waiting until all of those are gone. One way
to do that would be
* secondary counter in files_struct
* rcu-delayed freeing of actual structure (not a problem)
* rcu_read_lock in 3rd-party readers (among other things
it means that proc_readfd_common() would need to be rearchitected
a bit)
* close_files() starting with subtraction of large constant
from the secondary counter and then spinning until it gets to
-<large constant>
* 3rd-party readers (under rcu_read_lock()) fetching task->files,
bumping the secondary counter unless it's negative, doing their thing,
then decrementing the counter.