lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Feb]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRE: [PATCH] seccomp: Improve performance by optimizing memory barrier
Date
> From: Leon Romanovsky [mailto:leon@kernel.org]
> Sent: Monday, February 8, 2021 2:44 PM
> To: Wanghongzhe (Hongzhe, EulerOS) <wanghongzhe@huawei.com>
> Cc: keescook@chromium.org; luto@amacapital.net; wad@chromium.org;
> ast@kernel.org; daniel@iogearbox.net; andrii@kernel.org; kafai@fb.com;
> songliubraving@fb.com; yhs@fb.com; john.fastabend@gmail.com;
> kpsingh@kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; netdev@vger.kernel.org;
> bpf@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] seccomp: Improve performance by optimizing memory
> barrier
>
> On Mon, Feb 01, 2021 at 08:49:41PM +0800, wanghongzhe wrote:
> > If a thread(A)'s TSYNC flag is set from seccomp(), then it will
> > synchronize its seccomp filter to other threads(B) in same thread
> > group. To avoid race condition, seccomp puts rmb() between reading the
> > mode and filter in seccomp check patch(in B thread).
> > As a result, every syscall's seccomp check is slowed down by the
> > memory barrier.
> >
> > However, we can optimize it by calling rmb() only when filter is NULL
> > and reading it again after the barrier, which means the rmb() is
> > called only once in thread lifetime.
> >
> > The 'filter is NULL' conditon means that it is the first time
> > attaching filter and is by other thread(A) using TSYNC flag.
> > In this case, thread B may read the filter first and mode later in CPU
> > out-of-order exection. After this time, the thread B's mode is always
> > be set, and there will no race condition with the filter/bitmap.
> >
> > In addtion, we should puts a write memory barrier between writing the
> > filter and mode in smp_mb__before_atomic(), to avoid the race
> > condition in TSYNC case.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: wanghongzhe <wanghongzhe@huawei.com>
> > ---
> > kernel/seccomp.c | 31 ++++++++++++++++++++++---------
> > 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/seccomp.c b/kernel/seccomp.c index
> > 952dc1c90229..b944cb2b6b94 100644
> > --- a/kernel/seccomp.c
> > +++ b/kernel/seccomp.c
> > @@ -397,8 +397,20 @@ static u32 seccomp_run_filters(const struct
> seccomp_data *sd,
> > READ_ONCE(current->seccomp.filter);
> >
> > /* Ensure unexpected behavior doesn't result in failing open. */
> > - if (WARN_ON(f == NULL))
> > - return SECCOMP_RET_KILL_PROCESS;
> > + if (WARN_ON(f == NULL)) {
> > + /*
> > + * Make sure the first filter addtion (from another
> > + * thread using TSYNC flag) are seen.
> > + */
> > + rmb();
> > +
> > + /* Read again */
> > + f = READ_ONCE(current->seccomp.filter);
> > +
> > + /* Ensure unexpected behavior doesn't result in failing open. */
> > + if (WARN_ON(f == NULL))
> > + return SECCOMP_RET_KILL_PROCESS;
> > + }
>
> IMHO, double WARN_ON() for the fallback flow is too much.
> Also according to the description, this "f == NULL" check is due to races and
> not programming error which WARN_ON() are intended to catch.
>
> Thanks

Maybe you are right. I think 'if (f == NULL)' is enough for this optimizing.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-02-08 08:14    [W:0.084 / U:3.120 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site