lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Mar]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [locks] 6d390e4b5d: will-it-scale.per_process_ops -96.6% regression
From
Date
On Thu, 2020-03-12 at 15:42 +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 11 2020, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 3:22 PM NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de> wrote:
> > > We can combine the two ideas - move the list_del_init() later, and still
> > > protect it with the wq locks. This avoids holding the lock across the
> > > callback, but provides clear atomicity guarantees.
> >
> > Ugfh. Honestly, this is disgusting.
> >
> > Now you re-take the same lock in immediate succession for the
> > non-callback case. It's just hidden.
> >
> > And it's not like the list_del_init() _needs_ the lock (it's not
> > currently called with the lock held).
> >
> > So that "hold the lock over list_del_init()" seems to be horrendously
> > bogus. It's only done as a serialization thing for that optimistic
> > case.
> >
> > And that optimistic case doesn't even *want* that kind of
> > serialization. It really just wants a "I'm done" flag.
> >
> > So no. Don't do this. It's mis-using the lock in several ways.
> >
> > Linus
>
> It seems that test_and_set_bit_lock() is the preferred way to handle
> flags when memory ordering is important, and I can't see how to use that
> well with an "I'm done" flag. I can make it look OK with a "I'm
> detaching" flag. Maybe this is better.
>
> NeilBrown
>
> From f46db25f328ddf37ca9fbd390c6eb5f50c4bd2e6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
> Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2020 07:39:04 +1100
> Subject: [PATCH] locks: restore locks_delete_lock optimization
>
> A recent patch (see Fixes: below) removed an optimization which is
> important as it avoids taking a lock in a common case.
>
> The comment justifying the optimisation was correct as far as it went,
> in that if the tests succeeded, then the values would remain stable and
> the test result will remain valid even without a lock.
>
> However after the test succeeds the lock can be freed while some other
> thread might have only just set ->blocker to NULL (thus allowing the
> test to succeed) but has not yet called wake_up() on the wq in the lock.
> If the wake_up happens after the lock is freed, a use-after-free error occurs.
>
> This patch restores the optimization and adds a flag to ensure this
> use-after-free is avoid. The use happens only when the flag is set, and
> the free doesn't happen until the flag has been cleared, or we have
> taken blocked_lock_lock.
>
> Fixes: 6d390e4b5d48 ("locks: fix a potential use-after-free problem when wakeup a waiter")
> Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
> ---
> fs/locks.c | 44 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
> include/linux/fs.h | 3 ++-
> 2 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>

Just a note that I'm traveling at the moment, and won't be able do much
other than comment on this for a few days.

> diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c
> index 426b55d333d5..334473004c6c 100644
> --- a/fs/locks.c
> +++ b/fs/locks.c
> @@ -283,7 +283,7 @@ locks_dump_ctx_list(struct list_head *list, char *list_type)
> struct file_lock *fl;
>
> list_for_each_entry(fl, list, fl_list) {
> - pr_warn("%s: fl_owner=%p fl_flags=0x%x fl_type=0x%x fl_pid=%u\n", list_type, fl->fl_owner, fl->fl_flags, fl->fl_type, fl->fl_pid);
> + pr_warn("%s: fl_owner=%p fl_flags=0x%lx fl_type=0x%x fl_pid=%u\n", list_type, fl->fl_owner, fl->fl_flags, fl->fl_type, fl->fl_pid);
> }
> }
>
> @@ -314,7 +314,7 @@ locks_check_ctx_file_list(struct file *filp, struct list_head *list,
> list_for_each_entry(fl, list, fl_list)
> if (fl->fl_file == filp)
> pr_warn("Leaked %s lock on dev=0x%x:0x%x ino=0x%lx "
> - " fl_owner=%p fl_flags=0x%x fl_type=0x%x fl_pid=%u\n",
> + " fl_owner=%p fl_flags=0x%lx fl_type=0x%x fl_pid=%u\n",
> list_type, MAJOR(inode->i_sb->s_dev),
> MINOR(inode->i_sb->s_dev), inode->i_ino,
> fl->fl_owner, fl->fl_flags, fl->fl_type, fl->fl_pid);
> @@ -736,10 +736,13 @@ static void __locks_wake_up_blocks(struct file_lock *blocker)
> waiter = list_first_entry(&blocker->fl_blocked_requests,
> struct file_lock, fl_blocked_member);
> __locks_delete_block(waiter);
> - if (waiter->fl_lmops && waiter->fl_lmops->lm_notify)
> - waiter->fl_lmops->lm_notify(waiter);
> - else
> - wake_up(&waiter->fl_wait);
> + if (!test_and_set_bit_lock(FL_DELETING, &waiter->fl_flags)) {
> + if (waiter->fl_lmops && waiter->fl_lmops->lm_notify)
> + waiter->fl_lmops->lm_notify(waiter);
> + else
> + wake_up(&waiter->fl_wait);
> + clear_bit_unlock(FL_DELETING, &waiter->fl_flags);
> + }

I *think* this is probably safe.

AIUI, when you use atomic bitops on a flag word like this, you should
use them for all modifications to ensure that your changes don't get
clobbered by another task racing in to do a read/modify/write cycle on
the same word.

I haven't gone over all of the places where fl_flags is changed, but I
don't see any at first glance that do it on a blocked request.

> }
> }
>
> @@ -753,11 +756,40 @@ int locks_delete_block(struct file_lock *waiter)
> {
> int status = -ENOENT;
>
> + /*
> + * If fl_blocker is NULL, it won't be set again as this thread
> + * "owns" the lock and is the only one that might try to claim
> + * the lock. So it is safe to test fl_blocker locklessly.
> + * Also if fl_blocker is NULL, this waiter is not listed on
> + * fl_blocked_requests for some lock, so no other request can
> + * be added to the list of fl_blocked_requests for this
> + * request. So if fl_blocker is NULL, it is safe to
> + * locklessly check if fl_blocked_requests is empty. If both
> + * of these checks succeed, there is no need to take the lock.
> + *
> + * We perform these checks only if we can set FL_DELETING.
> + * This ensure that we don't race with __locks_wake_up_blocks()
> + * in a way which leads it to call wake_up() *after* we return
> + * and the file_lock is freed.
> + */
> + if (!test_and_set_bit_lock(FL_DELETING, &waiter->fl_flags)) {
> + if (waiter->fl_blocker == NULL &&
> + list_empty(&waiter->fl_blocked_requests)) {
> + /* Already fully unlinked */
> + clear_bit_unlock(FL_DELETING, &waiter->fl_flags);
> + return status;
> + }
> + }
> +
> spin_lock(&blocked_lock_lock);
> if (waiter->fl_blocker)
> status = 0;
> __locks_wake_up_blocks(waiter);
> __locks_delete_block(waiter);
> + /* This flag might not be set and it is largely irrelevant
> + * now, but it seem cleaner to clear it.
> + */
> + clear_bit(FL_DELETING, &waiter->fl_flags);
> spin_unlock(&blocked_lock_lock);
> return status;
> }
> diff --git a/include/linux/fs.h b/include/linux/fs.h
> index 3cd4fe6b845e..4db514f29bca 100644
> --- a/include/linux/fs.h
> +++ b/include/linux/fs.h
> @@ -1012,6 +1012,7 @@ static inline struct file *get_file(struct file *f)
> #define FL_UNLOCK_PENDING 512 /* Lease is being broken */
> #define FL_OFDLCK 1024 /* lock is "owned" by struct file */
> #define FL_LAYOUT 2048 /* outstanding pNFS layout */
> +#define FL_DELETING 32768 /* lock is being disconnected */

nit: Why the big gap?

>
> #define FL_CLOSE_POSIX (FL_POSIX | FL_CLOSE)
>
> @@ -1087,7 +1088,7 @@ struct file_lock {
> * ->fl_blocker->fl_blocked_requests
> */
> fl_owner_t fl_owner;
> - unsigned int fl_flags;
> + unsigned long fl_flags;

This will break kABI, so backporting this to enterprise distro kernels
won't be trivial. Not a showstopper, but it might be nice to avoid that
if we can.

While it's not quite as efficient, we could just do the FL_DELETING
manipulation under the flc->flc_lock. That's per-inode, so it should be
safe to do it that way.

> unsigned char fl_type;
> unsigned int fl_pid;
> int fl_link_cpu; /* what cpu's list is this on? */

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-03-12 13:32    [W:0.140 / U:27.476 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site