Received: by 2002:a25:1506:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id 6csp1808641ybv; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 10:09:49 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxL8jdM4mC/SDHjbKGru8ir0Oj8IuKW1kYbGmrLbkMo6FEeiJeQrHDVey+enAEt1JYxIGAy X-Received: by 2002:aca:37c3:: with SMTP id e186mr7978821oia.155.1581012589587; Thu, 06 Feb 2020 10:09:49 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1581012589; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=GvErG5SzRaWSxKc9sFq9Igy14VgVzbu7GVY9zr0Z4RmVDCRTHxr9wbtLxBpR8uBQL9 V/Lz1ExgZS2AT9V7q+y8HUGY3VD3eFr0vpPnSY+dA8k22bqfbqQHsTe6Gqpa6eOjTGmD q9zU8ZU1ytj6fMM/Pw2MF9OWgL58859OrBA/6FluBYBcz5AsZQ+67P3w9GM5ksBz+eky AbjqMn7fZTbFz0001wXTj9VsF2kMxQcxHdctMIq5gJ00Dj2dNFdOL40MMHatMkFPAbyu bWu/9BTs2YY5DjWaFA3sroCyWlAsmBqMLqNXQCI6MBlNzfH1Idn0EbaypQSIxCATG2jG kgyw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:user-agent:in-reply-to :content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc :to:from:date:dkim-signature; bh=TTs8wgYfod9EDeeOT5qAoSn8Dpf7YckZeXY0U9/3ciE=; b=hxmMPnvfLoqRCUSAclNdVuQQE4yvCriTGN/gmbWKYYFtCyGAGHwnHr6a1A1c5oOOQV XjSGksOoFP8AE+6mrtvBTwh0rvog8A4sqoDKPAiO87ibFau53OtDhpALbEsRdH/NoIbr so6zt7rBZZ444HX7V/9qIU3Huy6vuIaAOSy7wwC4w2u+83xbBgYTmkRDzrp8wOCvGEJ7 zRYBHMzIH/1me3tmKEk71koSIdS3AdacoGQjVrR2KkFAUQva97EAo9ahw5KWgeCzIyZQ /g9/Ib/gZwHCdxfDt1oHbI+D/a/XaNaEc5riWolb/xtF6K8wJZRsalXJfcJhyuQ4yPhw RbzQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@joelfernandes.org header.s=google header.b=IZJsW0zY; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id z7si195142oth.181.2020.02.06.10.09.36; Thu, 06 Feb 2020 10:09:49 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@joelfernandes.org header.s=google header.b=IZJsW0zY; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727836AbgBFSIb (ORCPT + 99 others); Thu, 6 Feb 2020 13:08:31 -0500 Received: from mail-qt1-f195.google.com ([209.85.160.195]:44804 "EHLO mail-qt1-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726990AbgBFSIa (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Feb 2020 13:08:30 -0500 Received: by mail-qt1-f195.google.com with SMTP id w8so5197964qts.11 for ; Thu, 06 Feb 2020 10:08:29 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelfernandes.org; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=TTs8wgYfod9EDeeOT5qAoSn8Dpf7YckZeXY0U9/3ciE=; b=IZJsW0zY0kjjUU/73e88/EBmqEKyvdTQals5hhotYge5FjZOAyJZJ9n4CA0gBPKUpX DXDYrQOXmlvqpnFRWU25EZQmAKd6tzW/qkFQST6f235pb0DvJ6oZuFbhlX3d/bvRmSxi Hw1Tqn1/KfYmGoSquXwBdTuZ4mBNSzPW1fwJc= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=TTs8wgYfod9EDeeOT5qAoSn8Dpf7YckZeXY0U9/3ciE=; b=tUVWQFpMTIDS9sc51gujA1TMOQYu3FwkYYXZDyUsVk/i02U5i7zIkAuMPfza7lScLq 3BbY1v3RUXlf7KBTWdez+3MSHH6Vydp4GL8HJBS7n9KOdSu1Rgzgn6G53tuVZNmvT2QH DcjK4xBG5Cav6FjT4lYIs6m5mS3OuWzNBKLwoQE7EohNWsWc7WDT1bDZseEjVTzjcxR0 xCoTw9IqsKYJEcgaDrvp/02RDPHiyu1+Fth0cq0VfI6UnEfysn0qBcn+/MrYayGD9qaK YVCrqIP3aMcffGg9G3OP7JtZkGmQ1OiGL2q0nss/nU8E+bsOZhqvnpBuCM7nDr9SNYaA qvKg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXwcTaEy08p44WR/m8q+lyA6uKOafLPnEE6gqjwxnzs9KS4RpE6 z3MEWSRCoi5os0w4sHTK/gvDoA== X-Received: by 2002:ac8:4542:: with SMTP id z2mr3740785qtn.324.1581012509150; Thu, 06 Feb 2020 10:08:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([2620:15c:6:12:9c46:e0da:efbf:69cc]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j206sm24818qke.54.2020.02.06.10.08.28 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 06 Feb 2020 10:08:28 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2020 13:08:28 -0500 From: Joel Fernandes To: Jann Horn Cc: Amol Grover , David Howells , Shakeel Butt , James Morris , Oleg Nesterov , Kees Cook , Thomas Gleixner , kernel list , linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Madhuparna Bhowmik , "Paul E . McKenney" Subject: Re: [PATCH] cred: Use RCU primitives to access RCU pointers Message-ID: <20200206180828.GA36876@google.com> References: <20200128072740.21272-1-frextrite@gmail.com> <20200128170426.GA10277@workstation-portable> <20200129065738.GA17486@workstation-portable> <20200206013251.GC55522@google.com> <20200206164938.GD55522@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 06:15:56PM +0100, Jann Horn wrote: > On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 5:49 PM Joel Fernandes wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 12:28:42PM +0100, Jann Horn wrote: > > [snip] > > > > > > > > > task_struct.cred doesn't actually have RCU semantics though, see > > > > > > > > > commit d7852fbd0f0423937fa287a598bfde188bb68c22. For task_struct.cred, > > > > > > > > > it would probably be more correct to remove the __rcu annotation? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Jann, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I went through the commit you mentioned. If I understand it correctly, > > > > > > > > ->cred was not being accessed concurrently (via RCU), hence, a non_rcu > > > > > > > > flag was introduced, which determined if the clean-up should wait for > > > > > > > > RCU grace-periods or not. And since, the changes were 'thread local' > > > > > > > > there was no need to wait for an entire RCU GP to elapse. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The commit too, as you said, mentions the removal of __rcu annotation. > > > > > > > > However, simply removing the annotation won't work, as there are quite a > > > > > > > > few instances where RCU primitives are used. Even get_current_cred() > > > > > > > > uses RCU APIs to get a reference to ->cred. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Luckily, there aren't too many places that directly access ->cred, > > > > > > > since luckily there are helper functions like get_current_cred() that > > > > > > > will do it for you. Grepping through the kernel, I see: > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > So actually, the number of places that already don't use RCU accessors > > > > > > > is much higher than the number of places that use them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, currently, maybe we > > > > > > > > should continue to use RCU APIs and leave the __rcu annotation in? > > > > > > > > (Until someone who takes it on himself to remove __rcu annotation and > > > > > > > > fix all the instances). Does that sound good? Or do you want me to > > > > > > > > remove __rcu annotation and get the process started? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think it's a good idea to add more uses of RCU APIs for > > > > > > > ->cred; you shouldn't "fix" warnings by making the code more wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you want to fix this, I think it would be relatively easy to fix > > > > > > > this properly - as far as I can tell, there are only seven places that > > > > > > > you'll have to change, although you may have to split it up into three > > > > > > > patches. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for the detailed analysis. I'll try my best and send you a > > > > > > patch. > > > > > > > > Amol, Jann, if I understand the discussion correctly, objects ->cred > > > > point (the subjective creds) are never (or never need to be) RCU-managed. > > > > This makes sense in light of the commit Jann pointed out > > > > (d7852fbd0f0423937fa287a598bfde188bb68c22). > [...] > > > > 3. Also I removed the whole non_rcu flag, and introduced a new put_cred_non_rcu() API > > > > which places that task-synchronously use ->cred can overwrite. Callers > > > > doing such accesses like access() can use this API instead. > > > > > > That's wrong, don't do that. > > > > > > ->cred is a reference without RCU semantics, ->real_cred is a > > > reference with RCU semantics. If there have never been any references > > > with RCU semantics to a specific instance of struct cred, then that > > > instance can indeed be freed without an RCU grace period. But it would > > > be possible for some filesystem code to take a reference to > > > current->cred, and assign it to some pointer with RCU semantics > > > somewhere, then drop that reference with put_cred() immediately before > > > you reach put_cred_non_rcu(); with the result that despite using > > > put_cred(), the other side doesn't get RCU semantics. > > > > > > Just leave the whole ->non_rcu thing exactly as it was. > > > > Can you point to an example in the kernel that actually uses ->cred this way? > > I'm just curious. That is, reads task's ->cred pointer, and assigns it to an > > RCU managed pointer? > > I'm almost sure that there are no such cases at the moment. However, > from a maintainability standpoint, I'm still very twitchy about this > change; the current API encapsulates the RCU weirdness in the standard > helper functions, but with your proposal, suddenly taking f_cred from > somewhere and using it as a new task's subjective creds, or something > like that, would be unsafe. I agree with you. I talked to Amol and he will remove that part of the diff when he sends patches. I believe he needs to also split into separate patches as needed. thanks, - Joel