From: Andrei Vagin <[email protected]>
The main reason is to use new wake_up helpers that will be added in the
following patches. But here are a few other reasons:
* if we use two different ways, we always need to call them both. This
patch fixes seccomp_notify_recv where we forgot to call wake_up_poll
in the error path.
* If we use one primitive, we can control how many waiters are woken up
for each request. Our goal is to wake up just one that will handle a
request. Right now, wake_up_poll can wake up one waiter and
up(&match->notif->request) can wake up one more.
Signed-off-by: Andrei Vagin <[email protected]>
---
kernel/seccomp.c | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/seccomp.c b/kernel/seccomp.c
index e9852d1b4a5e..876022e9c88c 100644
--- a/kernel/seccomp.c
+++ b/kernel/seccomp.c
@@ -145,7 +145,7 @@ struct seccomp_kaddfd {
* @notifications: A list of struct seccomp_knotif elements.
*/
struct notification {
- struct semaphore request;
+ atomic_t requests;
u64 next_id;
struct list_head notifications;
};
@@ -1116,7 +1116,7 @@ static int seccomp_do_user_notification(int this_syscall,
list_add_tail(&n.list, &match->notif->notifications);
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&n.addfd);
- up(&match->notif->request);
+ atomic_add(1, &match->notif->requests);
wake_up_poll(&match->wqh, EPOLLIN | EPOLLRDNORM);
/*
@@ -1450,6 +1450,37 @@ find_notification(struct seccomp_filter *filter, u64 id)
return NULL;
}
+static int recv_wake_function(wait_queue_entry_t *wait, unsigned int mode, int sync,
+ void *key)
+{
+ /* Avoid a wakeup if event not interesting for us. */
+ if (key && !(key_to_poll(key) & (EPOLLIN | EPOLLERR)))
+ return 0;
+ return autoremove_wake_function(wait, mode, sync, key);
+}
+
+static int recv_wait_event(struct seccomp_filter *filter)
+{
+ DEFINE_WAIT_FUNC(wait, recv_wake_function);
+ int ret;
+
+ if (atomic_add_unless(&filter->notif->requests, -1, 0) != 0)
+ return 0;
+
+ for (;;) {
+ ret = prepare_to_wait_event(&filter->wqh, &wait, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
+
+ if (atomic_add_unless(&filter->notif->requests, -1, 0) != 0)
+ break;
+
+ if (ret)
+ return ret;
+
+ schedule();
+ }
+ finish_wait(&filter->wqh, &wait);
+ return 0;
+}
static long seccomp_notify_recv(struct seccomp_filter *filter,
void __user *buf)
@@ -1467,7 +1498,7 @@ static long seccomp_notify_recv(struct seccomp_filter *filter,
memset(&unotif, 0, sizeof(unotif));
- ret = down_interruptible(&filter->notif->request);
+ ret = recv_wait_event(filter);
if (ret < 0)
return ret;
@@ -1515,7 +1546,8 @@ static long seccomp_notify_recv(struct seccomp_filter *filter,
if (should_sleep_killable(filter, knotif))
complete(&knotif->ready);
knotif->state = SECCOMP_NOTIFY_INIT;
- up(&filter->notif->request);
+ atomic_add(1, &filter->notif->requests);
+ wake_up_poll(&filter->wqh, EPOLLIN | EPOLLRDNORM);
}
mutex_unlock(&filter->notify_lock);
}
@@ -1777,7 +1809,6 @@ static struct file *init_listener(struct seccomp_filter *filter)
if (!filter->notif)
goto out;
- sema_init(&filter->notif->request, 0);
filter->notif->next_id = get_random_u64();
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&filter->notif->notifications);
--
2.39.0.314.g84b9a713c41-goog
On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 01:30:06PM -0800, Andrei Vagin wrote:
> From: Andrei Vagin <[email protected]>
>
> The main reason is to use new wake_up helpers that will be added in the
> following patches. But here are a few other reasons:
>
> * if we use two different ways, we always need to call them both. This
> patch fixes seccomp_notify_recv where we forgot to call wake_up_poll
> in the error path.
[snip]
> @@ -1515,7 +1546,8 @@ static long seccomp_notify_recv(struct seccomp_filter *filter,
> if (should_sleep_killable(filter, knotif))
> complete(&knotif->ready);
> knotif->state = SECCOMP_NOTIFY_INIT;
> - up(&filter->notif->request);
> + atomic_add(1, &filter->notif->requests);
> + wake_up_poll(&filter->wqh, EPOLLIN | EPOLLRDNORM);
> }
> mutex_unlock(&filter->notify_lock);
> }
I wonder if this shouldn't be a separate patch that you can send now
independent of this series?
Tycho
On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 6:58 AM Tycho Andersen <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 01:30:06PM -0800, Andrei Vagin wrote:
> > From: Andrei Vagin <[email protected]>
> >
> > The main reason is to use new wake_up helpers that will be added in the
> > following patches. But here are a few other reasons:
> >
> > * if we use two different ways, we always need to call them both. This
> > patch fixes seccomp_notify_recv where we forgot to call wake_up_poll
> > in the error path.
>
> [snip]
>
> > @@ -1515,7 +1546,8 @@ static long seccomp_notify_recv(struct seccomp_filter *filter,
> > if (should_sleep_killable(filter, knotif))
> > complete(&knotif->ready);
> > knotif->state = SECCOMP_NOTIFY_INIT;
> > - up(&filter->notif->request);
> > + atomic_add(1, &filter->notif->requests);
> > + wake_up_poll(&filter->wqh, EPOLLIN | EPOLLRDNORM);
> > }
> > mutex_unlock(&filter->notify_lock);
> > }
>
> I wonder if this shouldn't be a separate patch that you can send now
> independent of this series?
You are right. It is a bug fix and I can send it in a separate patch.
I didn't expect it would take so long to merge the whole set.
Thanks,
Andrei
On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 01:30:06PM -0800, Andrei Vagin wrote:
> + atomic_add(1, &match->notif->requests);
atomic_inc() ?