Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210929115036.4851-1-laoar.shao@gmail.com> <20210929115036.4851-5-laoar.shao@gmail.com>
 <202109291113.6DE8D6F3D@keescook>
In-Reply-To: <202109291113.6DE8D6F3D@keescook>
From:   Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 30 Sep 2021 20:53:27 +0800
Message-ID: <CALOAHbD3HUqUnjMYKX7NGwVWiS4K7OvS6uPNWucnOA5Cy3pn9w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] kernel: increase the size of kthread's comm
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
        qiang.zhang@windriver.com, robdclark@chromium.org,
        Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>, christian@brauner.io,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 2:20 AM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 11:50:35AM +0000, Yafang Shao wrote:
> > This patch increases the size of ktread's comm from 16 to 24, which is
> > the same with workqueue's, to improve this situation. After this cahnge,
> > [...]
> > Because there're only a few of kthreads, so it won't increase too much
> > memory.
>
> Even without the performance impact changes, the math here doesn't hold
> either, since using kmalloc means there are slabs being allocated to hold
> the task "comm"s now (which comes with overhead), and every task added
> a pointer to those 16 bytes (i.e. 8 more bytes on 64-bit systems). So
> this change, even if there was 0 overhead in using slabs, would be
> identical to having just raised TASK_COMM_LEN to 24. 8 byte pointer,
> 16 byte allocation == 24 bytes.
>

Right, thanks for the explanation. I missed the pointer before.

What about reusing the kthread_data() to store the the comm if the
kthread is not a kworker?

struct kthread {
     ...
     void *data;  // reuse this pointer
     ...
}

The logic will be something as follows,

    if (kthread_is_kworker) {
          store_worker_desc_into_kthread_data(); // already did in the kernel
     } else {
          store_comm_into_kthread_data();   // that is what we should change
    }

And then we modify the  proc_task_name() correspondingly.

-- 
Thanks
Yafang