From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Cc: Giuseppe Scrivano <gscrivan@redhat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
alexander.deucher@amd.com, broonie@kernel.org,
chris@chris-wilson.co.uk, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
deepa.kernel@gmail.com, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com, lucien xin <lucien.xin@gmail.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>,
syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com,
Vladislav Yasevich <vyasevich@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH linux-next] mqueue: fix IPC namespace use-after-free
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 22:40:54 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171219224054.GV21978@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8737465qxn.fsf@xmission.com>
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 03:49:24PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > what would you be delaying? kmem_cache_alloc() for struct mount and assignments
> > to its fields? That's noise; if anything, I would expect the main cost with
> > a plenty of containers to be in sget() scanning the list of mqueue superblocks.
> > And we can get rid of that, while we are at it - to hell with mount_ns(), with
> > that approach we can just use mount_nodev() instead. The logics in
> > mq_internal_mount() will deal with multiple instances - if somebody has already
> > triggered creation of internal mount, all subsequent calls in that ipcns will
> > end up avoiding kern_mount_data() entirely. And if you have two callers
> > racing - sure, you will get two superblocks. Not for long, though - the first
> > one to get to setting ->mq_mnt (serialized on mq_lock) wins, the second loses
> > and prompty destroys his vfsmount and superblock. I seriously suspect that
> > variant below would cut down on the cost a whole lot more - as it is, we have
> > the total of O(N^2) spent in the loop inside of sget_userns() when we create
> > N ipcns and mount in each of those; this patch should cut that to
> > O(N)...
>
> If that is where the cost is, is there any point in delaying creating
> the internal mount at all?
We won't know without the profiles... Incidentally, is there any point in
using mount_ns() for procfs? Similar scheme (with ->proc_mnt instead of
->mq_mnt, of course) would live with mount_nodev() just fine, and it's
definitely less costly - we don't bother with the loop in sget_userns()
at all that way.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-12-19 22:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-12-19 10:14 Giuseppe Scrivano
2017-12-19 11:48 ` Al Viro
2017-12-19 15:32 ` Al Viro
2017-12-19 15:44 ` Al Viro
2017-12-19 16:31 ` Dmitry Vyukov
2017-12-19 17:02 ` Giuseppe Scrivano
2017-12-19 16:59 ` Giuseppe Scrivano
2017-12-19 18:40 ` Giuseppe Scrivano
2017-12-19 20:14 ` Al Viro
2017-12-19 21:49 ` Eric W. Biederman
2017-12-19 22:40 ` Al Viro [this message]
2017-12-19 23:36 ` Eric W. Biederman
2017-12-21 19:19 ` Giuseppe Scrivano
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=20171219224054.GV21978@ZenIV.linux.org.uk \
--to=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=alexander.deucher@amd.com \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=chris@chris-wilson.co.uk \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=deepa.kernel@gmail.com \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=gscrivan@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com \
--cc=lucien.xin@gmail.com \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=nhorman@tuxdriver.com \
--cc=syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com \
--cc=vyasevich@gmail.com \
/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
Powered by JetHome