Re: [PATCH RFC] audit: move the tree pruning to a dedicated thread

[Imre Palik]

On 01/08/15 22:53, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 06, 2015 03:51:20 PM Imre Palik wrote:
>> From: "Palik, Imre" <imrep@xxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> When file auditing is enabled, during a low memory situation, a memory
>> allocation with __GFP_FS can lead to pruning the inode cache.  Which can,
>> in turn lead to audit_tree_freeing_mark() being called.  This can call
>> audit_schedule_prune(), that tries to fork a pruning thread, and
>> waits until the thread is created.  But forking needs memory, and the
>> memory allocations there are done with __GFP_FS.
>>
>> So we are waiting merrily for some __GFP_FS memory allocations to complete,
>> while holding some filesystem locks.  This can take a while ...
>>
>> This patch creates a single thread for pruning the tree from
>> audit_add_tree_rule(), and thus avoids the deadlock that the on-demand
>> thread creation can cause.
>>
>> Reported-by: Matt Wilson <msw@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Matt Wilson <msw@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Imre Palik <imrep@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Thanks for sticking with this and posting a revised patch, my comments are 
> inline with the patch below ... also as a FYI, when sending a revised patch it 
> is often helpful to put a revision indicator in the subject line, as an 
> example:
> 
>   "[RFC PATCH v2] audit: make audit less awful"
> 
> It's not strictly necessary, but it makes my life just a little bit easier.

Sorry for that.  I realised that I botched the subject immediately after
sending the mail :-(

> 
>> diff --git a/kernel/audit_tree.c b/kernel/audit_tree.c
>> index 0caf1f8..0ada577 100644
>> --- a/kernel/audit_tree.c
>> +++ b/kernel/audit_tree.c
> 
> ...
> 
>> +static int launch_prune_thread(void)
>> +{
>> +	prune_thread = kthread_create(prune_tree_thread, NULL,
>> +				"audit_prune_tree");
>> +	if (IS_ERR(prune_thread)) {
>> +		audit_panic("cannot start thread audit_prune_tree");
> 
> I'm not certain audit_panic() is warranted here, pr_err() might be a better 
> choice.  What is the harm if the thread doesn't start and we return an error 
> code?

I thought disabling the bigger part of the file auditing would warrant a bigger
bang than pr_err().  If you think, it is an overkill, then I can change it.

But see my comment below in audit_schedule_prune()

>> +		prune_thread = NULL;
>> +		return -ENOSYS;
> 
> Out of curiosity, why ENOSYS?

I thought it is a bit less confusing than ESRCH.

>> +	} else {
>> +		wake_up_process(prune_thread);
>> +		return 0;
>> +	}
>> +}
> 
> See my comments below in audit_schedule_prune().
> 
>>  /* called with audit_filter_mutex */
>>  int audit_add_tree_rule(struct audit_krule *rule)
>>  {
>> @@ -663,6 +713,12 @@ int audit_add_tree_rule(struct audit_krule *rule)
>>  	/* do not set rule->tree yet */
>>  	mutex_unlock(&audit_filter_mutex);
>>
>> +	if (unlikely(!prune_thread)) {
>> +		err = launch_prune_thread();
>> +		if (err)
>> +			goto Err;
>> +	}
>> +
> 
> Why not put this at the top of audit_add_tree_rule()?

I would like to do this without holding audit_filter_mutex.

if (!prune_thread) then the file auditing is disabled, so it probably won't
hurt moving this to the beginning of the function, but I feel better when it
is done here.

>>  	err = kern_path(tree->pathname, 0, &path);
>>  	if (err)
>>  		goto Err;
>> @@ -713,6 +769,9 @@ int audit_tag_tree(char *old, char *new)
>>  	struct vfsmount *tagged;
>>  	int err;
>>
>> +	if (!prune_thread)
>> +		return -ENOSYS;
> 
> Help me out - why?
> 
>>  	err = kern_path(new, 0, &path2);
>>  	if (err)
>>  		return err;
>> @@ -800,36 +859,11 @@ int audit_tag_tree(char *old, char *new)
>>  	return failed;
>>  }
>>
>> -/*
>> - * That gets run when evict_chunk() ends up needing to kill audit_tree.
>> - * Runs from a separate thread.
>> - */
>> -static int prune_tree_thread(void *unused)
>> -{
>> -	mutex_lock(&audit_cmd_mutex);
>> -	mutex_lock(&audit_filter_mutex);
>> -
>> -	while (!list_empty(&prune_list)) {
>> -		struct audit_tree *victim;
>> -
>> -		victim = list_entry(prune_list.next, struct audit_tree, list);
>> -		list_del_init(&victim->list);
>> -
>> -		mutex_unlock(&audit_filter_mutex);
>> -
>> -		prune_one(victim);
>> -
>> -		mutex_lock(&audit_filter_mutex);
>> -	}
>> -
>> -	mutex_unlock(&audit_filter_mutex);
>> -	mutex_unlock(&audit_cmd_mutex);
>> -	return 0;
>> -}
>>
>>  static void audit_schedule_prune(void)
>>  {
>> -	kthread_run(prune_tree_thread, NULL, "audit_prune_tree");
>> +	BUG_ON(!prune_thread);
>> +	wake_up_process(prune_thread);
>>  }
> 
> First, I probably wasn't clear last time so I'll be more clear now: no 
> BUG_ON() here, handle the error.

As far as I see, I disabled all the codepaths that can reach this point with
!prune_thread.  So I thought leaving the BUG_ON() here doesn't really matter.

> Second, and closely related to the last sentence, perhaps the right approach 
> is to merge the launch_prune_thread() code with audit_schedule_prune() such 
> that we only have one function which starts the thread if it isn't present, 
> and wakes it up if it is, something like the following:
> 
> 	static int audit_schedule_prune(void)
> 	{
> 		if (!prune_thread) {
> 			prune_thread = kthread_create(...);
> 			if (IS_ERR(prune_thread)) {
> 				pr_err("cannot start thread audit_prune_tree");
> 				prune_thread = NULL;
> 				return -ENOSYS;
> 			}
> 		}
> 
> 		wake_up_process(prune_thread);
> 		return 0;
> 	}

if we do the thread creation in audit_schedule_prune, we won't necessarily
need the dedicated thread.  This would be the alternative approach I mentioned
in the comment part of my original mail.  Sorry if I was not clear enough.

Basically I see the following approaches:

1) dedicated thread created on syscall entry, with disabling file auditing as
   long as the thread cannot be created.

2) on-demand thread-creation/destruction with some serialisation to ensure
   that we won't create too many threads.

3) dedicated thread created on syscall entry, with fallback to thread creation
   at cleanup time, if original thread creation fails.

Am I right that you would like to see the third one?

> 
>>  /*
>> @@ -896,9 +930,10 @@ static void evict_chunk(struct audit_chunk *chunk)
>>  	for (n = 0; n < chunk->count; n++)
>>  		list_del_init(&chunk->owners[n].list);
>>  	spin_unlock(&hash_lock);
>> +	mutex_unlock(&audit_filter_mutex);
>>  	if (need_prune)
>>  		audit_schedule_prune();
>> -	mutex_unlock(&audit_filter_mutex);
>> +
>>  }
> 
> Remove that trailing empty vertical whitespace please.  If you aren't using it 
> already, you should look into scripts/checkpatch.pl to sanity check your 
> patches before sending.

Could you point me to that whitespace?  I cannot see it in the patch, and
scripts/checkpatch.pl was not complaining either.

It might be my mail setup, but without knowing what is amiss, I cannot troubleshoot
it.

> 

--
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/