Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] pstore: locking: dont lock unless caller asks to

From: Kees Cook
Date: Thu Nov 10 2016 - 19:10:15 EST


On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 12:34 AM, Joel Fernandes <joelaf@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> In preparation of not locking at all for certain buffers depending on if
> there's contention, make locking optional depending if caller requested it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes <joelaf@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/pstore/ram.c | 10 +++++-----
> fs/pstore/ram_core.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++-----------
> include/linux/pstore_ram.h | 10 +++++++++-
> 3 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/pstore/ram.c b/fs/pstore/ram.c
> index f1219af..cb07ef6 100644
> --- a/fs/pstore/ram.c
> +++ b/fs/pstore/ram.c
> @@ -260,7 +260,7 @@ static size_t ramoops_write_kmsg_hdr(struct persistent_ram_zone *prz,
> compressed ? 'C' : 'D');
> WARN_ON_ONCE(!hdr);
> len = hdr ? strlen(hdr) : 0;
> - persistent_ram_write(prz, hdr, len);
> + persistent_ram_write(prz, hdr, len, PSTORE_RAM_LOCK);
> kfree(hdr);
>
> return len;
> @@ -280,17 +280,17 @@ static int notrace ramoops_pstore_write_buf(enum pstore_type_id type,
> if (type == PSTORE_TYPE_CONSOLE) {
> if (!cxt->cprz)
> return -ENOMEM;
> - persistent_ram_write(cxt->cprz, buf, size);
> + persistent_ram_write(cxt->cprz, buf, size, PSTORE_RAM_LOCK);
> return 0;
> } else if (type == PSTORE_TYPE_FTRACE) {
> if (!cxt->fprz)
> return -ENOMEM;
> - persistent_ram_write(cxt->fprz, buf, size);
> + persistent_ram_write(cxt->fprz, buf, size, PSTORE_RAM_LOCK);
> return 0;
> } else if (type == PSTORE_TYPE_PMSG) {
> if (!cxt->mprz)
> return -ENOMEM;
> - persistent_ram_write(cxt->mprz, buf, size);
> + persistent_ram_write(cxt->mprz, buf, size, PSTORE_RAM_LOCK);
> return 0;
> }
>
> @@ -324,7 +324,7 @@ static int notrace ramoops_pstore_write_buf(enum pstore_type_id type,
> hlen = ramoops_write_kmsg_hdr(prz, compressed);
> if (size + hlen > prz->buffer_size)
> size = prz->buffer_size - hlen;
> - persistent_ram_write(prz, buf, size);
> + persistent_ram_write(prz, buf, size, PSTORE_RAM_LOCK);
>
> cxt->dump_write_cnt = (cxt->dump_write_cnt + 1) % cxt->max_dump_cnt;
>
> diff --git a/fs/pstore/ram_core.c b/fs/pstore/ram_core.c
> index cb92055..69c7b96 100644
> --- a/fs/pstore/ram_core.c
> +++ b/fs/pstore/ram_core.c
> @@ -49,13 +49,15 @@ static inline size_t buffer_start(struct persistent_ram_zone *prz)
> }
>
> /* increase and wrap the start pointer, returning the old value */
> -static size_t buffer_start_add(struct persistent_ram_zone *prz, size_t a)
> +static size_t buffer_start_add(struct persistent_ram_zone *prz, size_t a,
> + int lock)
> {
> int old;
> int new;
> unsigned long flags;
>
> - raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&prz->buffer_lock, flags);
> + if (lock == PSTORE_RAM_LOCK)
> + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&prz->buffer_lock, flags);
>
> old = atomic_read(&prz->buffer->start);
> new = old + a;
> @@ -63,19 +65,21 @@ static size_t buffer_start_add(struct persistent_ram_zone *prz, size_t a)
> new -= prz->buffer_size;
> atomic_set(&prz->buffer->start, new);
>
> - raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&prz->buffer_lock, flags);
> + if (lock == PSTORE_RAM_LOCK)
> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&prz->buffer_lock, flags);
>
> return old;
> }
>
> /* increase the size counter until it hits the max size */
> -static void buffer_size_add(struct persistent_ram_zone *prz, size_t a)
> +static void buffer_size_add(struct persistent_ram_zone *prz, size_t a, int lock)
> {
> size_t old;
> size_t new;
> unsigned long flags;
>
> - raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&prz->buffer_lock, flags);
> + if (lock == PSTORE_RAM_LOCK)
> + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&prz->buffer_lock, flags);
>
> old = atomic_read(&prz->buffer->size);
> if (old == prz->buffer_size)
> @@ -87,7 +91,8 @@ static void buffer_size_add(struct persistent_ram_zone *prz, size_t a)
> atomic_set(&prz->buffer->size, new);
>
> exit:
> - raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&prz->buffer_lock, flags);
> + if (lock == PSTORE_RAM_LOCK)
> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&prz->buffer_lock, flags);
> }
>
> static void notrace persistent_ram_encode_rs8(struct persistent_ram_zone *prz,

Does this pass a sparse test? Depending on how dumb sparse is, you may
need to add "else" statements to the lock == RAM_LOCK tests:

else
__acquire(&prz->buffer_lock);

...

else
__release(&prz->buffer_lock);



Otherwise, this looks fine. :)

-Kees

--
Kees Cook
Nexus Security