Re: [PATCH v2] selinux: reduce locking overhead in inode_free_security()

[Raghavendra K T]

On 06/13/2015 04:05 AM, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 06/12/2015 08:31 AM, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> > On 06/12/2015 02:26 AM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> > > On 06/12/2015 03:01 AM, Waiman Long wrote:
> > > > The inode_free_security() function just took the superblock's isec_lock
> > > > before checking and trying to remove the inode security struct from the
> > > > linked list. In many cases, the list was empty and so the lock taking
> > > > is wasteful as no useful work is done. On multi-socket systems with
> > > > a large number of CPUs, there can also be a fair amount of spinlock
> > > > contention on the isec_lock if many tasks are exiting at the same time.
> > > >
> > > > This patch changes the code to check the state of the list first
> > > > before taking the lock and attempting to dequeue it. As this function
> > > > is called indirectly from __destroy_inode(), there can't be another
> > > > instance of inode_free_security() running on the same inode.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Waiman Long<Waiman.Long@xxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > >    security/selinux/hooks.c |   15 ++++++++++++---
> > > >    1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > v1->v2:
> > > >    - Take out the second list_empty() test inside the lock.
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/security/selinux/hooks.c b/security/selinux/hooks.c
> > > > index 7dade28..e5cdad7 100644
> > > > --- a/security/selinux/hooks.c
> > > > +++ b/security/selinux/hooks.c
> > > > @@ -254,10 +254,19 @@ static void inode_free_security(struct inode
> > > > *inode)
> > > >        struct inode_security_struct *isec = inode->i_security;
> > > >        struct superblock_security_struct *sbsec =
> > > > inode->i_sb->s_security;
> > > >
> > > > -    spin_lock(&sbsec->isec_lock);
> > > > -    if (!list_empty(&isec->list))
> > > > +    /*
> > > > +     * As not all inode security structures are in a list, we check
> > > > for
> > > > +     * empty list outside of the lock to make sure that we won't waste
> > > > +     * time taking a lock doing nothing. As inode_free_security() is
> > > > +     * being called indirectly from __destroy_inode(), there is no way
> > > > +     * there can be two or more concurrent calls. So doing the
> > > > list_empty()
> > > > +     * test outside the loop should be safe.
> > > > +     */
> > > > +    if (!list_empty(&isec->list)) {
> > > > +        spin_lock(&sbsec->isec_lock);
> > > >            list_del_init(&isec->list);
> > > Stupid question,
> > >
> > > I need to take a look at list_del_init() code, but it can so happen that
> > > if !list_empty() check could happen simultaneously, then serially two
> > > list_del_init() can happen.
> > >
> > > is that not a problem()?
> > Hmm...I suppose that's possible (sb_finish_set_opts and
> > inode_free_security could both perform the list_del_init).  Ok, we'll
> > stay with the first version.
>
> Actually, list_del_init() can be applied twice with no harm being done.
> The first list_del_init() will set list-> next = list->prev = list. The
> second one will do the same thing and so it should be safe.

Waiman,
I do not think it is just about list_del_init() twice

what if


CPU1                   CPU2                         CPU3

!list_empty()         !list_empty()

lock
list_del_init()
unlock

                                                 list_add()
                        lock
                        list_del_init
                        unlock

But this is valid only if list_add() is possible after first
list_del_init. I need to see code though.
OR am I missing something?












--
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/