Re: [PATCH v8 07/11] proc: flush task dcache entries from all procfs instances
From: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Date: 2020-02-13 05:55:40
Also in:
linux-fsdevel, linux-security-module, lkml
On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 10:37:52PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
I think I have an alternate idea that could work. Add some extra code into proc_task_readdir, that would look for dentries that no longer point to tasks and d_invalidate them. With the same logic probably being called from a few more places as well like proc_pid_readdir, proc_task_lookup, and proc_pid_lookup. We could even optimize it and have a process died flag we set in the superblock. That would would batch up the freeing work until the next time someone reads from proc in a way that would create more dentries. So it would prevent dentries from reaped zombies from growing without bound. Hmm. Given the existence of proc_fill_cache it would really be a good idea if readdir and lookup performed some of the freeing work as well. As on readdir we always populate the dcache for all of the directory entries.
First of all, that won't do a damn thing when nobody is accessing given superblock. What's more, readdir in root of that procfs instance is not enough - you need it in task/ of group leader. What I don't understand is the insistence on getting those dentries via dcache lookups. _IF_ we are willing to live with cacheline contention (on ->d_lock of root dentry, if nothing else), why not do the following: * put all dentries of such directories ([0-9]* and [0-9]*/task/*) into a list anchored in task_struct; have non-counting reference to task_struct stored in them (might simplify part of get_proc_task() users, BTW - avoids pid-to-task_struct lookups if we have a dentry and not just the inode; many callers do) * have ->d_release() remove from it (protecting per-task_struct lock nested outside of all ->d_lock) * on exit: lock the (per-task_struct) list while list is non-empty pick the first dentry remove from the list sb = dentry->d_sb try to bump sb->s_active (if non-zero, that is). if failed continue // move on to the next one - nothing to do here grab ->d_lock res = handle_it(dentry, &temp_list) drop ->d_lock unlock the list if (!list_empty(&temp_list)) shrink_dentry_list(&temp_list) if (res) d_invalidate(dentry) dput(dentry) deactivate_super(sb) lock the list unlock the list handle_it(dentry, temp_list) // ->d_lock held; that one should be in dcache.c if ->d_count is negative // unlikely return 0; if ->d_count is positive, increment ->d_count return 1; // OK, it's still alive, but ->d_count is 0 __d_drop // equivalent of d_invalidate in this case if not on a shrink list // otherwise it's not our headache if on lru list d_lru_del d_shrink_add dentry to temp_list return 0; And yeah, that'll dirty ->s_active for each procfs superblock that has dentry for our process present in dcache. On exit()...