Thread (2 messages) 2 messages, 2 authors, 2021-01-21

Re: [RFC PATCH v3 1/8] Use refcount_t for ucounts reference counting

From: Eric W. Biederman <hidden>
Date: 2021-01-20 02:00:59
Also in: io-uring, lkml

Alexey Gladkov [off-list ref] writes:
On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 12:34:29PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
quoted
On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 11:46 AM Alexey Gladkov
[off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
Sorry about that. I thought that this code is not needed when switching
from int to refcount_t. I was wrong.
Well, you _may_ be right. I personally didn't check how the return
value is used.

I only reacted to "it certainly _may_ be used, and there is absolutely
no comment anywhere about why it wouldn't matter".
I have not found examples where checked the overflow after calling
refcount_inc/refcount_add.

For example in kernel/fork.c:2298 :

   current->signal->nr_threads++;                           
   atomic_inc(&current->signal->live);                      
   refcount_inc(&current->signal->sigcnt);  

$ semind search signal_struct.sigcnt
def include/linux/sched/signal.h:83  		refcount_t		sigcnt;
m-- kernel/fork.c:723 put_signal_struct 		if (refcount_dec_and_test(&sig->sigcnt))
m-- kernel/fork.c:1571 copy_signal 		refcount_set(&sig->sigcnt, 1);
m-- kernel/fork.c:2298 copy_process 				refcount_inc(&current->signal->sigcnt);

It seems to me that the only way is to use __refcount_inc and then compare
the old value with REFCOUNT_MAX

Since I have not seen examples of such checks, I thought that this is
acceptable. Sorry once again. I have not tried to hide these changes.
The current ucount code does check for overflow and fails the increment
in every case.

So arguably it will be a regression and inferior error handling behavior
if the code switches to the ``better'' refcount_t data structure.

I originally didn't use refcount_t because silently saturating and not
bothering to handle the error makes me uncomfortable.

Not having to acquire the ucounts_lock every time seems nice.  Perhaps
the path forward would be to start with stupid/correct code that always
takes the ucounts_lock for every increment of ucounts->count, that is
later replaced with something more optimal.

Not impacting performance in the non-namespace cases and having good
performance in the other cases is a fundamental requirement of merging
code like this.

Eric

Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help