mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
To: Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com>
Cc: mtk.manpages@gmail.com, Marcus Gelderie <redmnic@gmail.com>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	John Duffy <jb_duffy@btinternet.com>,
	Arto Bendiken <arto@bendiken.net>,
	Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] ipc: Modify message queue accounting to not take kernel data structures into account
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2015 17:00:05 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1436486405.27924.32.camel@stgolabs.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <559D7760.1020909@redhat.com>

While on the subject, after taking another look at where and how we
calculate the treesize, I think we can remove this check when checking
attributes (mqueue_attr_ok -- which itself could use some simplifying):

	mq_treesize = attr->mq_maxmsg * sizeof(struct msg_msg) +
		min_t(unsigned int, attr->mq_maxmsg, MQ_PRIO_MAX) *
		sizeof(struct posix_msg_tree_node);

	total_size = attr->mq_maxmsg * attr->mq_msgsize;

	if (total_size + mq_treesize < total_size)
		return -EOVERFLOW;
		^^^ this condition is never true, so we never return EOVERFLOW.
	return 0;

The below gets rid of this bogus check and refactors similar code,
introducing a mqueue_sizeof() helper to do the job of calculating total
mqueue overhead.

Thoughts?

Thanks,
Davidlohr

diff --git a/ipc/mqueue.c b/ipc/mqueue.c
index 161a180..a5d0c9e 100644
--- a/ipc/mqueue.c
+++ b/ipc/mqueue.c
@@ -209,6 +209,31 @@ try_again:
 	return msg;
 }
 
+/*
+ * We used to allocate a static array of pointers and account
+ * the size of that array as well as one msg_msg struct per
+ * possible message into the queue size. That's no longer
+ * accurate as the queue is now an rbtree and will grow and
+ * shrink depending on usage patterns.  We can, however, still
+ * account one msg_msg struct per message, but the nodes are
+ * allocated depending on priority usage, and most programs
+ * only use one, or a handful, of priorities.  However, since
+ * this is pinned memory, we need to assume worst case, so
+ * that means the min(mq_maxmsg, max_priorities) * struct
+ * posix_msg_tree_node.
+ */
+static inline unsigned long mqueue_sizeof(struct mqueue_inode_info *info)
+{
+	unsigned long mq_treesize, mq_max_msgsize;
+
+	mq_treesize = info->attr.mq_maxmsg * sizeof(struct msg_msg) +
+		min_t(unsigned int, info->attr.mq_maxmsg, MQ_PRIO_MAX) *
+		sizeof(struct posix_msg_tree_node);
+
+	mq_max_msgsize = info->attr.mq_maxmsg * info->attr.mq_msgsize;
+	return mq_treesize + mq_max_msgsize; /* bytes */
+}
+
 static struct inode *mqueue_get_inode(struct super_block *sb,
 		struct ipc_namespace *ipc_ns, umode_t mode,
 		struct mq_attr *attr)
@@ -229,7 +254,7 @@ static struct inode *mqueue_get_inode(struct super_block *sb,
 
 	if (S_ISREG(mode)) {
 		struct mqueue_inode_info *info;
-		unsigned long mq_bytes, mq_treesize;
+		unsigned long mq_bytes;
 
 		inode->i_fop = &mqueue_file_operations;
 		inode->i_size = FILENT_SIZE;
@@ -254,25 +279,8 @@ static struct inode *mqueue_get_inode(struct super_block *sb,
 			info->attr.mq_maxmsg = attr->mq_maxmsg;
 			info->attr.mq_msgsize = attr->mq_msgsize;
 		}
-		/*
-		 * We used to allocate a static array of pointers and account
-		 * the size of that array as well as one msg_msg struct per
-		 * possible message into the queue size. That's no longer
-		 * accurate as the queue is now an rbtree and will grow and
-		 * shrink depending on usage patterns.  We can, however, still
-		 * account one msg_msg struct per message, but the nodes are
-		 * allocated depending on priority usage, and most programs
-		 * only use one, or a handful, of priorities.  However, since
-		 * this is pinned memory, we need to assume worst case, so
-		 * that means the min(mq_maxmsg, max_priorities) * struct
-		 * posix_msg_tree_node.
-		 */
-		mq_treesize = info->attr.mq_maxmsg * sizeof(struct msg_msg) +
-			min_t(unsigned int, info->attr.mq_maxmsg, MQ_PRIO_MAX) *
-			sizeof(struct posix_msg_tree_node);
 
-		mq_bytes = mq_treesize + (info->attr.mq_maxmsg *
-					  info->attr.mq_msgsize);
+		mq_bytes = mqueue_sizeof(info);
 
 		spin_lock(&mq_lock);
 		if (u->mq_bytes + mq_bytes < u->mq_bytes ||
@@ -371,7 +379,7 @@ static void mqueue_evict_inode(struct inode *inode)
 {
 	struct mqueue_inode_info *info;
 	struct user_struct *user;
-	unsigned long mq_bytes, mq_treesize;
+	unsigned long mq_bytes;
 	struct ipc_namespace *ipc_ns;
 	struct msg_msg *msg;
 
@@ -388,13 +396,7 @@ static void mqueue_evict_inode(struct inode *inode)
 	kfree(info->node_cache);
 	spin_unlock(&info->lock);
 
-	/* Total amount of bytes accounted for the mqueue */
-	mq_treesize = info->attr.mq_maxmsg * sizeof(struct msg_msg) +
-		min_t(unsigned int, info->attr.mq_maxmsg, MQ_PRIO_MAX) *
-		sizeof(struct posix_msg_tree_node);
-
-	mq_bytes = mq_treesize + (info->attr.mq_maxmsg *
-				  info->attr.mq_msgsize);
+	mq_bytes = mqueue_sizeof(info);
 
 	user = info->user;
 	if (user) {
@@ -692,9 +694,6 @@ static void remove_notification(struct mqueue_inode_info *info)
 
 static int mq_attr_ok(struct ipc_namespace *ipc_ns, struct mq_attr *attr)
 {
-	int mq_treesize;
-	unsigned long total_size;
-
 	if (attr->mq_maxmsg <= 0 || attr->mq_msgsize <= 0)
 		return -EINVAL;
 	if (capable(CAP_SYS_RESOURCE)) {
@@ -709,12 +708,6 @@ static int mq_attr_ok(struct ipc_namespace *ipc_ns, struct mq_attr *attr)
 	/* check for overflow */
 	if (attr->mq_msgsize > ULONG_MAX/attr->mq_maxmsg)
 		return -EOVERFLOW;
-	mq_treesize = attr->mq_maxmsg * sizeof(struct msg_msg) +
-		min_t(unsigned int, attr->mq_maxmsg, MQ_PRIO_MAX) *
-		sizeof(struct posix_msg_tree_node);
-	total_size = attr->mq_maxmsg * attr->mq_msgsize;
-	if (total_size + mq_treesize < total_size)
-		return -EOVERFLOW;
 	return 0;
 }
 



  parent reply	other threads:[~2015-07-10  0:00 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-06-22 22:25 [PATCH v2] ipc: Modify message queue accounting to reflect both total user data and auxiliary kernel data Marcus Gelderie
2015-06-25  5:47 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2015-06-25  7:23   ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2015-06-25 18:21     ` Davidlohr Bueso
2015-07-06 15:49       ` [PATCH v3] ipc: Modify message queue accounting to not take kernel data structures into account Marcus Gelderie
2015-07-07  5:16         ` Davidlohr Bueso
2015-07-07 13:01           ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2015-07-08 19:17             ` Doug Ledford
2015-07-08 19:53               ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2015-07-08 21:49               ` Davidlohr Bueso
2015-07-10  0:00               ` Davidlohr Bueso [this message]
2015-07-11  0:48         ` [PATCH 2/1] ipc,mqueue: Delete bogus overflow check Davidlohr Bueso
2015-07-11  2:03           ` Al Viro
2015-07-11  2:59             ` Doug Ledford
2015-07-14 16:11               ` Marcus Gelderie
2015-06-25 18:50     ` [PATCH v2] ipc: Modify message queue accounting to reflect both total user data and auxiliary kernel data Marcus Gelderie
2015-07-07 18:49       ` Doug Ledford

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1436486405.27924.32.camel@stgolabs.net \
    --to=dave@stgolabs.net \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=arto@bendiken.net \
    --cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
    --cc=dledford@redhat.com \
    --cc=jb_duffy@btinternet.com \
    --cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mtk.manpages@gmail.com \
    --cc=redmnic@gmail.com \
    --cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®