Re: [PATCH] TOMOYO: Add garbage collector support. (v2)
From: Tetsuo Handa
Date: Sun May 24 2009 - 20:41:50 EST
------- Forwarded Message
From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: serue@xxxxxxxxxx, jmorris@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: haradats@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, takedakn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [PATCH] TOMOYO: Add garbage collector support. (v2)
Date: Sat, 23 May 2009 11:05:24 +0900
Thank you for reviewing.
Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> So yes, you might be able to get more review of your patch
> if you split it up into:
> 1. move allocations outside of semaphore
> 2. add proper refcounting
> 3. get rid of ->is_deleted
I'm ready to post part (1).
security/tomoyo/common.c | 80 ++++++---------------
security/tomoyo/common.h | 2
security/tomoyo/domain.c | 97 ++++++++++++-------------
security/tomoyo/file.c | 133 ++++++++++++++++++-----------------
security/tomoyo/realpath.c | 169 ++++++++++++++-------------------------------
security/tomoyo/realpath.h | 7 -
6 files changed, 200 insertions(+), 288 deletions(-)
But I think I won't get rid of ->is_deleted. Reasons are shown below.
> However, the way you went about it here is weird too. The big
> cookie list that pins items, instead of refcounts, is very un-linuxy.
> Is there a reason why you can't use more of a read-copy-update
> approach? Keep a refcount on the objects, get rid of ->is_deleted,
> remove the objects from their list instead of setting is_deleted
> (so that after one rcu cycle no new readers can come in and increment
> the refcount), wait an rcu cycle, and then free if refcount is 0?
All items are linked using "struct list_head".
TOMOYO uses "struct tomoyo_io_buffer" with three "struct list_head" members
named ->read_var1 / ->read_var2 / ->write_var1 for handling read()/write() via
securityfs interface. These members act as cookies.
Within a single read() request, it is possible to protect the list by using
down_read(). But an administrator won't read out all items in a single read()
request. Therefore, TOMOYO stores the item which is scheduled to be accessed on
next read() request into ->read_var1 and ->read_var2 .
Similar situation for write() request. An administrator won't write all items
in a single write() request. Therefore, TOMOYO stores the item which is
accessed on next write() request into ->write_var1 .
The ->read_var1 / ->read_var2 / ->write_var1 act as cookies.
Yes, I can add a refcounter to all items which is only used for remembering
whether an item is stored in ->read_var1 / ->read_var2 / ->write_var1 or not.
When the item which ->read_var1 / ->read_var2 / ->write_var1 refer changes,
we have to decrement the refcount of the object pointed by old ->read_var1 /
->read_var2 / ->write_var1 and increment the refcount of the object pointed by
new ->read_var1 / ->read_var2 / ->write_var1 before releasing the lock.
I pinned the address of "struct list_head" into the cookie list so that I don't
need to increment/decrement of an item's refcounter while guaranteeing that the
item pointed by the cookie list shall remain valid after up_read()/up_write().
> where tomoyo_used_by_cookie then walks every cookie, meaning every
> tomoyo object, seems hugely expensive to me. I know it's only at
> policy load, but...
The cookie list approach will save memory compared to the refcounter approach
because the number of cookies in the cookie list will be smaller than
the number of items in all lists except the cookie list.
Even if we defer releasing memory of a deleted item, we can't remove an
item from the list when an administrator deleted the item.
Removing from the list (i.e. list_del()) will modify ->next and ->prev pointer
of the item. If the item was scheduled to be accessed on next read() request,
TOMOYO will crash by dereferencing ->next pointer of the item.
Use of RCU does not help here because we need to keep the item valid as long as
the item is referred by ->read_var1 or ->read_var2 or ->write_var1 .
The ->is_deleted flag is needed for skipping an item in read() request
because TOMOYO can't modify ->next and ->prev pointer of an item when that item
is scheduled to be accessed on next read() request.
My opinion is that the refcounter approach might replace the cookie list
approach, but the refcounter approach can't get rid of ->is_deleted flag.
> > (2) Should TOMOYO have GC support?
> Well if your only audience is meant to be tiny embedded systems which
> will never update policy, then heck maybe not. But it certainly is
> weird not to.
The non-LSM version of TOMOYO is "GC support free" but saves a lot of memory
by using "singly linked list", "read lock free", "refcounter free" approach.
Maybe we should add a refcounter to all items and avoid the cookie list.
In that case, we can allow users to determine via the kernel config whether
TOMOYO supports GC or not. If GC support is not chosen via the kernel config,
TOMOYO can save memory by using "singly linked list", "read lock free",
"refcounter free" approach.
------- End of Forwarded Message
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/