Re: [PATCH -next] RFC: apparmor: Optimize retrieving current task secid

[Vinicius Costa Gomes]

John Johansen <john.johansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On 8/31/23 19:45, Vinicius Costa Gomes wrote:
>> John Johansen <john.johansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> 
>>> On 8/31/23 16:22, Vinicius Costa Gomes wrote:
>>>> When running will-it-scale[1] open2_process testcase, in a system with a
>>>> large number of cores, a bottleneck in retrieving the current task
>>>> secid was detected:
>>>>
>>>> 27.73% ima_file_check;do_open (inlined);path_openat;do_filp_open;do_sys_openat2;__x64_sys_openat;do_syscall_x64 (inlined);do_syscall_64;entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe (inlined);__libc_open64 (inlined)
>>>>       27.72%     0.01%  [kernel.vmlinux]      [k] security_current_getsecid_subj             -      -
>>>> 27.71% security_current_getsecid_subj;ima_file_check;do_open (inlined);path_openat;do_filp_open;do_sys_openat2;__x64_sys_openat;do_syscall_x64 (inlined);do_syscall_64;entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe (inlined);__libc_open64 (inlined)
>>>>       27.71%    27.68%  [kernel.vmlinux]      [k] apparmor_current_getsecid_subj             -      -
>>>> 19.94% __refcount_add (inlined);__refcount_inc (inlined);refcount_inc (inlined);kref_get (inlined);aa_get_label (inlined);aa_get_label (inlined);aa_get_current_label (inlined);apparmor_current_getsecid_subj;security_current_getsecid_subj;ima_file_check;do_open (inlined);path_openat;do_filp_open;do_sys_openat2;__x64_sys_openat;do_syscall_x64 (inlined);do_syscall_64;entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe (inlined);__libc_open64 (inlined)
>>>> 7.72% __refcount_sub_and_test (inlined);__refcount_dec_and_test (inlined);refcount_dec_and_test (inlined);kref_put (inlined);aa_put_label (inlined);aa_put_label (inlined);apparmor_current_getsecid_subj;security_current_getsecid_subj;ima_file_check;do_open (inlined);path_openat;do_filp_open;do_sys_openat2;__x64_sys_openat;do_syscall_x64 (inlined);do_syscall_64;entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe (inlined);__libc_open64 (inlined)
>>>>
>>>> A large amount of time was spent in the refcount.
>>>>
>>>> The most common case is that the current task label is available, and
>>>> no need to take references for that one. That is exactly what the
>>>> critical section helpers do, make use of them.
>>>>
>>>> New perf output:
>>>>
>>>> 39.12% vfs_open;path_openat;do_filp_open;do_sys_openat2;__x64_sys_openat;do_syscall_64;entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe;__libc_open64 (inlined)
>>>>       39.07%     0.13%  [kernel.vmlinux]          [k] do_dentry_open                                                               -      -
>>>> 39.05% do_dentry_open;vfs_open;path_openat;do_filp_open;do_sys_openat2;__x64_sys_openat;do_syscall_64;entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe;__libc_open64 (inlined)
>>>>       38.71%     0.01%  [kernel.vmlinux]          [k] security_file_open                                                           -      -
>>>> 38.70% security_file_open;do_dentry_open;vfs_open;path_openat;do_filp_open;do_sys_openat2;__x64_sys_openat;do_syscall_64;entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe;__libc_open64 (inlined)
>>>>       38.65%    38.60%  [kernel.vmlinux]          [k] apparmor_file_open                                                           -      -
>>>> 38.65% apparmor_file_open;security_file_open;do_dentry_open;vfs_open;path_openat;do_filp_open;do_sys_openat2;__x64_sys_openat;do_syscall_64;entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe;__libc_open64 (inlined)
>>>>
>>>> The result is a throughput improvement of around 20% across the board
>>>> on the open2 testcase. On more realistic workloads the impact should
>>>> be much less.
>>>> hrmmm, interesting. its a nice improvement
>>>
>>>> [1] https://github.com/antonblanchard/will-it-scale
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> Acked-by: John Johansen <john.johansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> do you want me to pull this into apparmor-next or do you have another
>>> tree in mind
>>>
>> 
>> -next is fine.
>> 
>>>> ---
>>>> Sending as RFC because I am not sure there's anything I am missing. My
>>>> read of the code tells me it should be fine.
>>>
>>> it is
>>>
>> 
>> Great. Do you want me to send a non-RFC version?
>>
> you can if you want but there is no need, I can do that small edit
>

I'll leave that to you, then. Thank you.

>>>>
>>>>    security/apparmor/lsm.c | 4 ++--
>>>>    1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/security/apparmor/lsm.c b/security/apparmor/lsm.c
>>>> index 108eccc5ada5..98e65c44ddd5 100644
>>>> --- a/security/apparmor/lsm.c
>>>> +++ b/security/apparmor/lsm.c
>>>> @@ -766,9 +766,9 @@ static void apparmor_bprm_committed_creds(struct linux_binprm *bprm)
>>>>    
>>>>    static void apparmor_current_getsecid_subj(u32 *secid)
>>>>    {
>>>> -	struct aa_label *label = aa_get_current_label();
>>>> +	struct aa_label *label = __begin_current_label_crit_section();
>>>>    	*secid = label->secid;
>>>> -	aa_put_label(label);
>>>> +	__end_current_label_crit_section(label);
>>>>    }
>>>>    
>>>>    static void apparmor_task_getsecid_obj(struct task_struct *p, u32 *secid)
>>>
>> 
>> Cheers,
>

Cheers,
-- 
Vinicius