lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Oct]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH v2] mount: In propagate_umount handle overlapping mount propagation trees
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 04:45:44PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Andrei Vagin <avagin@virtuozzo.com> writes:
>
> > On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 02:42:03PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >>
> >> Andrei,
> >>
> >> This fixes the issue you have reported and through a refactoring
> >> makes the code simpler and easier to verify. That said I find your
> >> last test case very interesting. While looking at it in detail
> >> I have realized I don't fully understand why we have both lookup_mnt and
> >> lookup_mnt_last, so I can't say that this change is fully correct.
> >>
> >> Outside of propogate_umount I am don't have concerns but I am not 100%
> >> convinced that my change to lookup_mnt_last does the right thing
> >> in the case of propagate_umount.
> >>
> >> I do see why your last test case scales badly. Long chains of shared
> >> mounts that we can't skip. At the same time I don't really understand
> >> that case. Part of it has to do with multiple child mounts of the same
> >> mount on the same mountpoint.
> >>
> >> So I am working through my concerns. In the mean time I figured it
> >> would be useful to post this version. As this version is clearly better
> >> than the version of this change that have come before it.
> >
> > Hi Eric,
> >
> > I have tested this version and it works fine.
> >
> > As for the the last test case, could you look at the attached patch?
> > The idea is that we can skip all mounts from a shared group, if one
> > of them already marked.
> >
> >>
> >> Eric
> >>
> >> From: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
> >> Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 13:27:19 -0500
> >>
> >> Adrei Vagin pointed out that time to executue propagate_umount can go
> >> non-linear (and take a ludicrious amount of time) when the mount
> >> propogation trees of the mounts to be unmunted by a lazy unmount
> >> overlap.
> >>
> >> While investigating the horrible performance I realized that in
> >> the case overlapping mount trees since the addition of locked
> >> mount support the code has been failing to unmount all of the
> >> mounts it should have been unmounting.
> >>
> >> Make the walk of the mount propagation trees nearly linear by using
> >> MNT_MARK to mark pieces of the mount propagation trees that have
> >> already been visited, allowing subsequent walks to skip over
> >> subtrees.
> >>
> >> Make the processing of mounts order independent by adding a list of
> >> mount entries that need to be unmounted, and simply adding a mount to
> >> that list when it becomes apparent the mount can safely be unmounted.
> >> For mounts that are locked on other mounts but otherwise could be
> >> unmounted move them from their parnets mnt_mounts to mnt_umounts so
> >> that if and when their parent becomes unmounted these mounts can be
> >> added to the list of mounts to unmount.
> >>
> >> Add a final pass to clear MNT_MARK and to restore mnt_mounts
> >> from mnt_umounts for anything that did not get unmounted.
> >>
> >> Add the functions propagation_visit_next and propagation_revisit_next
> >> to coordinate walking of the mount tree and setting and clearing the
> >> mount mark.
> >>
> >> The skipping of already unmounted mounts has been moved from
> >> __lookup_mnt_last to mark_umount_candidates, so that the new
> >> propagation functions can notice when the propagation tree passes
> >> through the initial set of unmounted mounts. Except in umount_tree as
> >> part of the unmounting process the only place where unmounted mounts
> >> should be found are in unmounted subtrees. All of the other callers
> >> of __lookup_mnt_last are from mounted subtrees so the not checking for
> >> unmounted mounts should not affect them.
> >>
> >> A script to generate overlapping mount propagation trees:
> >> $ cat run.sh
> >> mount -t tmpfs test-mount /mnt
> >> mount --make-shared /mnt
> >> for i in `seq $1`; do
> >> mkdir /mnt/test.$i
> >> mount --bind /mnt /mnt/test.$i
> >> done
> >> cat /proc/mounts | grep test-mount | wc -l
> >> time umount -l /mnt
> >> $ for i in `seq 10 16`; do echo $i; unshare -Urm bash ./run.sh $i; done
> >>
> >> Here are the performance numbers with and without the patch:
> >>
> >> mhash | 8192 | 8192 | 8192 | 131072 | 131072 | 104857 | 104857
> >> mounts | before | after | after (sys) | after | after (sys) | after | after (sys)
> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> 1024 | 0.071s | 0.020s | 0.000s | 0.022s | 0.004s | 0.020s | 0.004s
> >> 2048 | 0.184s | 0.022s | 0.004s | 0.023s | 0.004s | 0.022s | 0.008s
> >> 4096 | 0.604s | 0.025s | 0.020s | 0.029s | 0.008s | 0.026s | 0.004s
> >> 8912 | 4.471s | 0.053s | 0.020s | 0.051s | 0.024s | 0.047s | 0.016s
> >> 16384 | 34.826s | 0.088s | 0.060s | 0.081s | 0.048s | 0.082s | 0.052s
> >> 32768 | | 0.216s | 0.172s | 0.160s | 0.124s | 0.160s | 0.096s
> >> 65536 | | 0.819s | 0.726s | 0.330s | 0.260s | 0.338s | 0.256s
> >> 131072 | | 4.502s | 4.168s | 0.707s | 0.580s | 0.709s | 0.592s
> >>
> >> Andrei Vagin reports fixing the performance problem is part of the
> >> work to fix CVE-2016-6213.
> >>
> >> A script for a pathlogical set of mounts:
> >>
> >> $ cat pathological.sh
> >>
> >> mount -t tmpfs base /mnt
> >> mount --make-shared /mnt
> >> mkdir -p /mnt/b
> >>
> >> mount -t tmpfs test1 /mnt/b
> >> mount --make-shared /mnt/b
> >> mkdir -p /mnt/b/10
> >>
> >> mount -t tmpfs test2 /mnt/b/10
> >> mount --make-shared /mnt/b/10
> >> mkdir -p /mnt/b/10/20
> >>
> >> mount --rbind /mnt/b /mnt/b/10/20
> >>
> >> unshare -Urm sleep 2
> >> umount -l /mnt/b
> >> wait %%
> >>
> >> $ unshare -Urm pathlogical.sh
> >>
> >> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> >> Fixes: a05964f3917c ("[PATCH] shared mounts handling: umount")
> >> Fixes: 0c56fe31420c ("mnt: Don't propagate unmounts to locked mounts")
> >> Reported-by: Andrei Vagin <avagin@openvz.org>
> >> Signed-off-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
> >> ---
> >> fs/mount.h | 1 +
> >> fs/namespace.c | 7 +--
> >> fs/pnode.c | 179 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
> >> fs/pnode.h | 2 +-
> >> 4 files changed, 133 insertions(+), 56 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/fs/mount.h b/fs/mount.h
> >> index d2e25d7b64b3..00fe0d1d6ba7 100644
> >> --- a/fs/mount.h
> >> +++ b/fs/mount.h
> >> @@ -58,6 +58,7 @@ struct mount {
> >> struct mnt_namespace *mnt_ns; /* containing namespace */
> >> struct mountpoint *mnt_mp; /* where is it mounted */
> >> struct hlist_node mnt_mp_list; /* list mounts with the same mountpoint */
> >> + struct list_head mnt_umounts; /* list of children that are being unmounted */
> >> #ifdef CONFIG_FSNOTIFY
> >> struct hlist_head mnt_fsnotify_marks;
> >> __u32 mnt_fsnotify_mask;
> >> diff --git a/fs/namespace.c b/fs/namespace.c
> >> index e6c234b1a645..73801391bb00 100644
> >> --- a/fs/namespace.c
> >> +++ b/fs/namespace.c
> >> @@ -237,6 +237,7 @@ static struct mount *alloc_vfsmnt(const char *name)
> >> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&mnt->mnt_slave_list);
> >> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&mnt->mnt_slave);
> >> INIT_HLIST_NODE(&mnt->mnt_mp_list);
> >> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&mnt->mnt_umounts);
> >> #ifdef CONFIG_FSNOTIFY
> >> INIT_HLIST_HEAD(&mnt->mnt_fsnotify_marks);
> >> #endif
> >> @@ -650,13 +651,11 @@ struct mount *__lookup_mnt_last(struct vfsmount *mnt, struct dentry *dentry)
> >> p = __lookup_mnt(mnt, dentry);
> >> if (!p)
> >> goto out;
> >> - if (!(p->mnt.mnt_flags & MNT_UMOUNT))
> >> - res = p;
> >> + res = p;
> >> hlist_for_each_entry_continue(p, mnt_hash) {
> >> if (&p->mnt_parent->mnt != mnt || p->mnt_mountpoint != dentry)
> >> break;
> >> - if (!(p->mnt.mnt_flags & MNT_UMOUNT))
> >> - res = p;
> >> + res = p;
> >> }
> >> out:
> >> return res;
> >> diff --git a/fs/pnode.c b/fs/pnode.c
> >> index 234a9ac49958..8fd1a3fb420c 100644
> >> --- a/fs/pnode.c
> >> +++ b/fs/pnode.c
> >> @@ -134,7 +134,8 @@ void change_mnt_propagation(struct mount *mnt, int type)
> >> }
> >>
> >> /*
> >> - * get the next mount in the propagation tree.
> >> + * get the next mount that is not a slave of the current mount in the
> >> + * propagation tree.
> >> * @m: the mount seen last
> >> * @origin: the original mount from where the tree walk initiated
> >> *
> >> @@ -143,13 +144,9 @@ void change_mnt_propagation(struct mount *mnt, int type)
> >> * vfsmount found while iterating with propagation_next() is
> >> * a peer of one we'd found earlier.
> >> */
> >> -static struct mount *propagation_next(struct mount *m,
> >> - struct mount *origin)
> >> +static struct mount *propagation_next_sib(struct mount *m,
> >> + struct mount *origin)
> >> {
> >> - /* are there any slaves of this mount? */
> >> - if (!IS_MNT_NEW(m) && !list_empty(&m->mnt_slave_list))
> >> - return first_slave(m);
> >> -
> >> while (1) {
> >> struct mount *master = m->mnt_master;
> >>
> >> @@ -164,6 +161,26 @@ static struct mount *propagation_next(struct mount *m,
> >> }
> >> }
> >>
> >> +/*
> >> + * get the next mount in the propagation tree.
> >> + * @m: the mount seen last
> >> + * @origin: the original mount from where the tree walk initiated
> >> + *
> >> + * Note that peer groups form contiguous segments of slave lists.
> >> + * We rely on that in get_source() to be able to find out if
> >> + * vfsmount found while iterating with propagation_next() is
> >> + * a peer of one we'd found earlier.
> >> + */
> >> +static struct mount *propagation_next(struct mount *m,
> >> + struct mount *origin)
> >> +{
> >> + /* are there any slaves of this mount? */
> >> + if (!IS_MNT_NEW(m) && !list_empty(&m->mnt_slave_list))
> >> + return first_slave(m);
> >> +
> >> + return propagation_next_sib(m, origin);
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> static struct mount *next_group(struct mount *m, struct mount *origin)
> >> {
> >> while (1) {
> >> @@ -389,57 +406,92 @@ void propagate_mount_unlock(struct mount *mnt)
> >> }
> >> }
> >>
> >> -/*
> >> - * Mark all mounts that the MNT_LOCKED logic will allow to be unmounted.
> >> - */
> >> -static void mark_umount_candidates(struct mount *mnt)
> >> +static struct mount *propagation_visit_child(struct mount *last_child,
> >> + struct mount *origin_child)
> >> {
> >> - struct mount *parent = mnt->mnt_parent;
> >> - struct mount *m;
> >> + struct mount *m = last_child->mnt_parent;
> >> + struct mount *origin = origin_child->mnt_parent;
> >> + struct dentry *mountpoint = origin_child->mnt_mountpoint;
> >> + struct mount *child;
> >>
> >> - BUG_ON(parent == mnt);
> >> + /* Has this part of the propgation tree already been visited? */
> >> + if (IS_MNT_MARKED(last_child))
> >> + return NULL;
> >>
> >> - for (m = propagation_next(parent, parent); m;
> >> - m = propagation_next(m, parent)) {
> >> - struct mount *child = __lookup_mnt_last(&m->mnt,
> >> - mnt->mnt_mountpoint);
> >> - if (child && (!IS_MNT_LOCKED(child) || IS_MNT_MARKED(m))) {
> >> - SET_MNT_MARK(child);
> >> - }
> >> + SET_MNT_MARK(last_child);
> >> +
> >> + m = propagation_next(m, origin);
> >> + while (m) {
> >> + child = __lookup_mnt_last(&m->mnt, mountpoint);
> >> + if (child && !IS_MNT_MARKED(child))
> >> + return child;
> >> +
> >> + if (!child)
> >> + m = propagation_next(m, origin);
> >> + else
> >> + m = propagation_next_sib(m, origin);
> >> }
> >> + return NULL;
> >> }
> >>
> >> -/*
> >> - * NOTE: unmounting 'mnt' naturally propagates to all other mounts its
> >> - * parent propagates to.
> >> - */
> >> -static void __propagate_umount(struct mount *mnt)
> >> +static struct mount *propagation_revisit_child(struct mount *last_child,
> >> + struct mount *origin_child)
> >> {
> >> - struct mount *parent = mnt->mnt_parent;
> >> - struct mount *m;
> >> + struct mount *m = last_child->mnt_parent;
> >> + struct mount *origin = origin_child->mnt_parent;
> >> + struct dentry *mountpoint = origin_child->mnt_mountpoint;
> >> + struct mount *child;
> >>
> >> - BUG_ON(parent == mnt);
> >> + /* Has this part of the propgation tree already been revisited? */
> >> + if (!IS_MNT_MARKED(last_child))
> >> + return NULL;
> >>
> >> - for (m = propagation_next(parent, parent); m;
> >> - m = propagation_next(m, parent)) {
> >> + CLEAR_MNT_MARK(last_child);
> >>
> >> - struct mount *child = __lookup_mnt_last(&m->mnt,
> >> - mnt->mnt_mountpoint);
> >> - /*
> >> - * umount the child only if the child has no children
> >> - * and the child is marked safe to unmount.
> >> - */
> >> - if (!child || !IS_MNT_MARKED(child))
> >> - continue;
> >> - CLEAR_MNT_MARK(child);
> >> - if (list_empty(&child->mnt_mounts)) {
> >> - list_del_init(&child->mnt_child);
> >> - child->mnt.mnt_flags |= MNT_UMOUNT;
> >> - list_move_tail(&child->mnt_list, &mnt->mnt_list);
> >> - }
> >> + m = propagation_next(m, origin);
> >> + while (m) {
> >> + child = __lookup_mnt_last(&m->mnt, mountpoint);
> >> + if (child && IS_MNT_MARKED(child))
> >> + return child;
> >> +
> >> + if (!child)
> >> + m = propagation_next(m, origin);
> >> + else
> >> + m = propagation_next_sib(m, origin);
> >> }
> >> + return NULL;
> >> }
> >>
> >> +static void start_umount_propagation(struct mount *child,
> >> + struct list_head *to_umount)
> >> +{
> >> + do {
> >> + struct mount *parent = child->mnt_parent;
> >> +
> >> + if ((child->mnt.mnt_flags & MNT_UMOUNT) ||
> >> + !list_empty(&child->mnt_mounts))
> >> + return;
> >> +
> >> + if (!IS_MNT_LOCKED(child))
> >> + list_move_tail(&child->mnt_child, to_umount);
> >> + else
> >> + list_move_tail(&child->mnt_child, &parent->mnt_umounts);
> >> +
> >> + child = NULL;
> >> + if (IS_MNT_MARKED(parent))
> >> + child = parent;
> >> + } while (child);
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +static void end_umount_propagation(struct mount *child)
> >> +{
> >> + struct mount *parent = child->mnt_parent;
> >> +
> >> + if (!list_empty(&parent->mnt_umounts))
> >> + list_splice_tail_init(&parent->mnt_umounts, &parent->mnt_mounts);
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +
> >> /*
> >> * collect all mounts that receive propagation from the mount in @list,
> >> * and return these additional mounts in the same list.
> >> @@ -447,14 +499,39 @@ static void __propagate_umount(struct mount *mnt)
> >> *
> >> * vfsmount lock must be held for write
> >> */
> >> -int propagate_umount(struct list_head *list)
> >> +void propagate_umount(struct list_head *list)
> >> {
> >> struct mount *mnt;
> >> + LIST_HEAD(to_umount);
> >> + LIST_HEAD(tmp_list);
> >> +
> >> + /* Find candidates for unmounting */
> >> + list_for_each_entry(mnt, list, mnt_list) {
> >> + struct mount *child;
> >> + for (child = propagation_visit_child(mnt, mnt); child;
> >> + child = propagation_visit_child(child, mnt))
> >> + start_umount_propagation(child, &to_umount);
> >> + }
> >>
> >> - list_for_each_entry_reverse(mnt, list, mnt_list)
> >> - mark_umount_candidates(mnt);
> >> + /* Begin unmounting */
> >> + while (!list_empty(&to_umount)) {
> >> + mnt = list_first_entry(&to_umount, struct mount, mnt_child);
> >>
> >> - list_for_each_entry(mnt, list, mnt_list)
> >> - __propagate_umount(mnt);
> >> - return 0;
> >> + list_del_init(&mnt->mnt_child);
> >> + mnt->mnt.mnt_flags |= MNT_UMOUNT;
> >> + list_move_tail(&mnt->mnt_list, &tmp_list);
> >> +
> >> + if (!list_empty(&mnt->mnt_umounts))
> >> + list_splice_tail_init(&mnt->mnt_umounts, &to_umount);
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + /* Cleanup the mount propagation tree */
> >> + list_for_each_entry(mnt, list, mnt_list) {
> >> + struct mount *child;
> >> + for (child = propagation_revisit_child(mnt, mnt); child;
> >> + child = propagation_revisit_child(child, mnt))
> >> + end_umount_propagation(child);
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + list_splice_tail(&tmp_list, list);
> >> }
> >> diff --git a/fs/pnode.h b/fs/pnode.h
> >> index 550f5a8b4fcf..38c6cdb96b34 100644
> >> --- a/fs/pnode.h
> >> +++ b/fs/pnode.h
> >> @@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ static inline void set_mnt_shared(struct mount *mnt)
> >> void change_mnt_propagation(struct mount *, int);
> >> int propagate_mnt(struct mount *, struct mountpoint *, struct mount *,
> >> struct hlist_head *);
> >> -int propagate_umount(struct list_head *);
> >> +void propagate_umount(struct list_head *);
> >> int propagate_mount_busy(struct mount *, int);
> >> void propagate_mount_unlock(struct mount *);
> >> void mnt_release_group_id(struct mount *);
> >> --
> >> 2.10.1
> >>
> >
> > From 8e0f45c0272aa1f789d1657a0acc98c58919dcc3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Andrei Vagin <avagin@openvz.org>
> > Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2016 13:57:31 -0700
> > Subject: [PATCH] mount: skip all mounts from a shared group if one is marked
> >
> > If we meet a marked mount, it means that all mounts from
> > its group have been already revised.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Andrei Vagin <avagin@openvz.org>
> > ---
> > fs/pnode.c | 18 +++++++++++++++---
> > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/pnode.c b/fs/pnode.c
> > index 8fd1a3f..ebb7134 100644
> > --- a/fs/pnode.c
> > +++ b/fs/pnode.c
> > @@ -426,10 +426,16 @@ static struct mount *propagation_visit_child(struct mount *last_child,
> > if (child && !IS_MNT_MARKED(child))
> > return child;
> >
> > - if (!child)
> > + if (!child) {
> > m = propagation_next(m, origin);
> > - else
> > + } else {
> > + if (IS_MNT_MARKED(child)) {
> > + if (m->mnt_group_id == origin->mnt_group_id)
> > + return NULL;
> > + m = m->mnt_master;
> > + }
> > m = propagation_next_sib(m, origin);
> > + }
> > }
> > return NULL;
> > }
> > @@ -456,8 +462,14 @@ static struct mount *propagation_revisit_child(struct mount *last_child,
> >
> > if (!child)
> > m = propagation_next(m, origin);
> > - else
> > + else {
> > + if (!IS_MNT_MARKED(child)) {
> > + if (m->mnt_group_id == origin->mnt_group_id)
> > + return NULL;
> > + m = m->mnt_master;
> > + }
> > m = propagation_next_sib(m, origin);
> > + }
> > }
> > return NULL;
> > }
>
> That is certainly interesting. The problem is that the reason we were
> going slow is that there were in fact mounts that had not been traversed
> in the share group.

You are right.

>
> And in fact the entire idea of visiting a vfsmount mountpoint pair
> exactly once is wrong in the face of shadow mounts. For a vfsmount
> mountpoint pair that has shadow mounts the number of shadow mounts needs
> to be descreased by one each time the propgation tree is traversed
> during unmount. Which means that as far as I can see we have to kill
> shadow mounts to correctly optimize this code. Once shadow mounts are
> gone I don't know of a case where need your optimization.

Without shadow mounts, it will be hard to save predictable behaviour
for cases like this:

$ unshare --propagation private -m sh test.sh
+ mount -t tmpfs --make-shared zzzz A
+ mkdir A/a
+ mount -t tmpfs zzzz A/a
+ mount --bind A B
+ mount -t tmpfs zzzz B/a
+ grep zzzz
+ cat /proc/self/mountinfo
155 123 0:44 / /root/tmp/A rw,relatime shared:70 - tmpfs zzzz rw
156 155 0:45 / /root/tmp/A/a rw,relatime shared:71 - tmpfs zzzz rw
157 123 0:44 / /root/tmp/B rw,relatime shared:70 - tmpfs zzzz rw
158 157 0:46 / /root/tmp/B/a rw,relatime shared:72 - tmpfs zzzz rw
159 155 0:46 / /root/tmp/A/a rw,relatime shared:72 - tmpfs zzzz rw
+ umount B/a
+ grep zzzz
+ cat /proc/self/mountinfo
155 123 0:44 / /root/tmp/A rw,relatime shared:70 - tmpfs zzzz rw
156 155 0:45 / /root/tmp/A/a rw,relatime shared:71 - tmpfs zzzz rw
157 123 0:44 / /root/tmp/B rw,relatime shared:70 - tmpfs zzzz rw

X + a - a = X

Maybe we need to add another ID for propagated mounts and when we
do umount, we will detach only mounts with the same propagation id.

I support the idea to kill shadow mounts. I guess it will help us to
simplify algorithm of dumping and restoring a mount tree in CRIU.

Currently it is a big pain for us.

>
> I am busily verifying my patch to kill shadow mounts but the following
> patch is the minimal version. As far as I can see propagate_one
> is the only place we create shadow mounts, and holding the
> namespace_lock over attach_recursive_mnt, propagate_mnt, and
> propgate_one is sufficient for that __lookup_mnt to be competely safe.
>
> diff --git a/fs/pnode.c b/fs/pnode.c
> index 234a9ac49958..b14119b370d4 100644
> --- a/fs/pnode.c
> +++ b/fs/pnode.c
> @@ -217,6 +217,9 @@ static int propagate_one(struct mount *m)
> /* skip if mountpoint isn't covered by it */
> if (!is_subdir(mp->m_dentry, m->mnt.mnt_root))
> return 0;
> + /* skip if mountpoint already has a mount on it */
> + if (__lookup_mnt(&m->mnt, mp->m_dentry))
> + return 0;
> if (peers(m, last_dest)) {
> type = CL_MAKE_SHARED;
> } else {
>
> If you run with that patch you will see that there are go faster stripes.
>
> Eric
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-10-26 01:58    [W:0.132 / U:8.488 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site