From: Andrei Vagin <avagin@google.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>,
Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@intel.com>,
avagin@gmail.com, Andrei Vagin <avagin@google.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Peter Oskolkov <posk@google.com>,
Tycho Andersen <tycho@tycho.pizza>,
Will Drewry <wad@chromium.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Subject: [PATCH 1/6] seccomp: don't use semaphore and wait_queue together
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2023 23:31:56 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230308073201.3102738-2-avagin@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230308073201.3102738-1-avagin@google.com>
The main reason is to use new wake_up helpers that will be added in the
following patches. But here are a few other reasons:
* if we use two different ways, we always need to call them both. This
patch fixes seccomp_notify_recv where we forgot to call wake_up_poll
in the error path.
* If we use one primitive, we can control how many waiters are woken up
for each request. Our goal is to wake up just one that will handle a
request. Right now, wake_up_poll can wake up one waiter and
up(&match->notif->request) can wake up one more.
Signed-off-by: Andrei Vagin <avagin@google.com>
---
kernel/seccomp.c | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/seccomp.c b/kernel/seccomp.c
index cebf26445f9e..9fca9345111c 100644
--- a/kernel/seccomp.c
+++ b/kernel/seccomp.c
@@ -145,7 +145,7 @@ struct seccomp_kaddfd {
* @notifications: A list of struct seccomp_knotif elements.
*/
struct notification {
- struct semaphore request;
+ atomic_t requests;
u64 next_id;
struct list_head notifications;
};
@@ -1116,7 +1116,7 @@ static int seccomp_do_user_notification(int this_syscall,
list_add_tail(&n.list, &match->notif->notifications);
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&n.addfd);
- up(&match->notif->request);
+ atomic_inc(&match->notif->requests);
wake_up_poll(&match->wqh, EPOLLIN | EPOLLRDNORM);
/*
@@ -1450,6 +1450,37 @@ find_notification(struct seccomp_filter *filter, u64 id)
return NULL;
}
+static int recv_wake_function(wait_queue_entry_t *wait, unsigned int mode, int sync,
+ void *key)
+{
+ /* Avoid a wakeup if event not interesting for us. */
+ if (key && !(key_to_poll(key) & (EPOLLIN | EPOLLERR)))
+ return 0;
+ return autoremove_wake_function(wait, mode, sync, key);
+}
+
+static int recv_wait_event(struct seccomp_filter *filter)
+{
+ DEFINE_WAIT_FUNC(wait, recv_wake_function);
+ int ret;
+
+ if (atomic_dec_if_positive(&filter->notif->requests) >= 0)
+ return 0;
+
+ for (;;) {
+ ret = prepare_to_wait_event(&filter->wqh, &wait, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
+
+ if (atomic_dec_if_positive(&filter->notif->requests) >= 0)
+ break;
+
+ if (ret)
+ return ret;
+
+ schedule();
+ }
+ finish_wait(&filter->wqh, &wait);
+ return 0;
+}
static long seccomp_notify_recv(struct seccomp_filter *filter,
void __user *buf)
@@ -1467,7 +1498,7 @@ static long seccomp_notify_recv(struct seccomp_filter *filter,
memset(&unotif, 0, sizeof(unotif));
- ret = down_interruptible(&filter->notif->request);
+ ret = recv_wait_event(filter);
if (ret < 0)
return ret;
@@ -1515,7 +1546,8 @@ static long seccomp_notify_recv(struct seccomp_filter *filter,
if (should_sleep_killable(filter, knotif))
complete(&knotif->ready);
knotif->state = SECCOMP_NOTIFY_INIT;
- up(&filter->notif->request);
+ atomic_inc(&filter->notif->requests);
+ wake_up_poll(&filter->wqh, EPOLLIN | EPOLLRDNORM);
}
mutex_unlock(&filter->notify_lock);
}
@@ -1777,7 +1809,6 @@ static struct file *init_listener(struct seccomp_filter *filter)
if (!filter->notif)
goto out;
- sema_init(&filter->notif->request, 0);
filter->notif->next_id = get_random_u64();
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&filter->notif->notifications);
--
2.40.0.rc0.216.gc4246ad0f0-goog
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-03-08 7:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-03-08 7:31 [PATCH 0/6 v5 RESEND] seccomp: add the synchronous mode for seccomp_unotify Andrei Vagin
2023-03-08 7:31 ` Andrei Vagin [this message]
2023-03-08 7:31 ` [PATCH 2/6] sched: add WF_CURRENT_CPU and externise ttwu Andrei Vagin
2023-04-08 3:20 ` Chen Yu
2023-04-10 4:56 ` Andrei Vagin
2023-04-10 17:27 ` Andy Lutomirski
2023-04-12 19:38 ` Andrei Vagin
2023-04-10 18:16 ` Chen Yu
2023-04-11 1:50 ` Chen Yu
2023-04-17 19:24 ` Andrei Vagin
2023-03-08 7:31 ` [PATCH 3/6] sched: add a few helpers to wake up tasks on the current cpu Andrei Vagin
2023-04-26 14:43 ` Bernd Schubert
2023-04-26 18:52 ` Andrei Vagin
2023-04-26 19:35 ` Bernd Schubert
2023-04-26 20:57 ` Bernd Schubert
2023-03-08 7:31 ` [PATCH 4/6] seccomp: add the synchronous mode for seccomp_unotify Andrei Vagin
2023-04-06 3:42 ` Andy Lutomirski
2023-04-10 6:59 ` Andrei Vagin
2023-04-10 20:53 ` Andy Lutomirski
2023-03-08 7:32 ` [PATCH 5/6] selftest/seccomp: add a new test for the sync mode of seccomp_user_notify Andrei Vagin
2023-03-08 7:32 ` [PATCH 6/6] perf/benchmark: add a new benchmark for seccom_unotify Andrei Vagin
2023-09-08 17:35 ` [PATCH] perf/benchmark: Fix ifdef in header file uapi/asm/unistd_32.h Vijayendra Suman
2023-09-08 17:38 ` Andrei Vagin
2023-09-08 18:18 ` Tycho Andersen
2023-10-17 8:24 ` [PATCH 6/6] perf/benchmark: add a new benchmark for seccom_unotify Jiri Slaby
2023-03-21 18:19 ` [PATCH 0/6 v5 RESEND] seccomp: add the synchronous mode for seccomp_unotify Andrei Vagin
2023-03-27 10:27 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-04-03 18:32 ` Andrei Vagin
2023-04-06 3:19 ` Kees Cook
2023-06-28 18:44 ` Andrei Vagin
2023-06-28 23:32 ` Kees Cook
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2023-02-02 3:04 [PATCH 0/6 v5] " Andrei Vagin
2023-02-02 3:04 ` [PATCH 1/6] seccomp: don't use semaphore and wait_queue together Andrei Vagin
2023-01-24 23:41 [PATCH 0/6 v4] seccomp: add the synchronous mode for seccomp_unotify Andrei Vagin
2023-01-24 23:41 ` [PATCH 1/6] seccomp: don't use semaphore and wait_queue together Andrei Vagin
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=20230308073201.3102738-2-avagin@google.com \
--to=avagin@google.com \
--cc=avagin@gmail.com \
--cc=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@amacapital.net \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=posk@google.com \
--cc=tycho@tycho.pizza \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=wad@chromium.org \
--cc=yu.c.chen@intel.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