From: Ayush Tiwari <ayushtiw0110@gmail.com>
To: "Mickaël Salaün" <mic@digikod.net>
Cc: paul@paul-moore.com, alison.schofield@intel.com,
fabio.maria.de.francesco@linux.intel.com,
linux-staging@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, outreachy@lists.linux.dev,
linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] LANDLOCK: use kmem_cache for landlock_object
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2024 07:49:39 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZgYlO8jGSH/6KTEe@ayush-HP-Pavilion-Gaming-Laptop-15-ec0xxx> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240328.aiPh0phaJ6ai@digikod.net>
On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 03:45:12PM +0100, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
> The subject should start with "landlock: Use" instead of "LANDLOCK: use"
>
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 01:23:17PM +0530, Ayush Tiwari wrote:
> > Hello Paul
> > Thanks a lot for the feedback. Apologies for the mistakes. Could you
> > help me in some places so that I can correct the errors, like:
> > On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 07:43:36PM -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 7:26 PM Ayush Tiwari <ayushtiw0110@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Use kmem_cache replace kzalloc() calls with kmem_cache_zalloc() for
> > > > struct landlock_object and update the related dependencies.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Ayush Tiwari <ayushtiw0110@gmail.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > security/landlock/fs.c | 2 +-
> > > > security/landlock/object.c | 14 ++++++++++++--
> > > > security/landlock/object.h | 4 ++++
> > > > security/landlock/setup.c | 2 ++
> > > > 4 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > Hi Ayush,
> > >
> > > Mickaël has the final say on Landlock patches, but I had a few
> > > comments that I've included below ...
> > >
> > > > diff --git a/security/landlock/fs.c b/security/landlock/fs.c
> > > > index fc520a06f9af..227dd67dd902 100644
> > > > --- a/security/landlock/fs.c
> > > > +++ b/security/landlock/fs.c
> > > > @@ -124,7 +124,7 @@ static struct landlock_object *get_inode_object(struct inode *const inode)
> > > > if (unlikely(rcu_access_pointer(inode_sec->object))) {
> > > > /* Someone else just created the object, bail out and retry. */
> > > > spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock);
> > > > - kfree(new_object);
> > > > + kmem_cache_free(landlock_object_cache, new_object);
> > >
> > > See my comment below, but you may want to wrap this in a Landlock
> > > object API function.
> > Sure. I will definitely implement this.
> > >
> > > > rcu_read_lock();
> > > > goto retry;
> > > > diff --git a/security/landlock/object.c b/security/landlock/object.c
> > > > index 1f50612f0185..df1354215617 100644
> > > > --- a/security/landlock/object.c
> > > > +++ b/security/landlock/object.c
> > > > @@ -17,6 +17,15 @@
> > > >
> > > > #include "object.h"
> > > >
> > > > +struct kmem_cache *landlock_object_cache;
> > > > +
> > > > +void __init landlock_object_init(void)
> > > > +{
> > > > + landlock_object_cache = kmem_cache_create(
> > > > + "landlock_object_cache", sizeof(struct landlock_object), 0,
>
> No need for the "_cache" name suffix.
>
> > > > + SLAB_PANIC, NULL);
> > >
> > > The comments in include/linux/slab.h suggest using the KMEM_CACHE()
> > > macro, instead of kmem_cache_create(), as a best practice for creating
> > > slab caches.
> > >
Hello mentors
I am facing some problem regarding replacing kzalloc with
kmem_cache_zalloc when using KMEM macro from include/linux/slab.h as for
kmem_cache_zalloc I will be needing a cache pointer to cache but KMEM macro
doesn't provide any macro. So is there any way to do this or should I
not use macro?
> > Sure. Apologies I didn't see that, I tried to implement it from scratch
> > using the reference from linux memory management APIs.
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > struct landlock_object *
> > > > landlock_create_object(const struct landlock_object_underops *const underops,
> > > > void *const underobj)
> > > > @@ -25,7 +34,8 @@ landlock_create_object(const struct landlock_object_underops *const underops,
> > > >
> > > > if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!underops || !underobj))
> > > > return ERR_PTR(-ENOENT);
> > > > - new_object = kzalloc(sizeof(*new_object), GFP_KERNEL_ACCOUNT);
> > > > + new_object =
> > > > + kmem_cache_zalloc(landlock_object_cache, GFP_KERNEL_ACCOUNT);
> > >
> > > If the line is too long, you might want to consider splitting the
> > > function parameters like this:
> > >
> > > new_object = kmem_cache_zalloc(landlock_object_cache,
> > > GFP_KERNEL_ACCOUNT);
> > >
> >
> > Sure. I didn't do as it was below the 100 columns limit, but will
> > definitely implement it.
>
> Please just use clang-format.
>
> > > > if (!new_object)
> > > > return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> > > > refcount_set(&new_object->usage, 1);
> > > > @@ -62,6 +72,6 @@ void landlock_put_object(struct landlock_object *const object)
> > > > * @object->underobj to @object (if it still exists).
> > > > */
> > > > object->underops->release(object);
> > > > - kfree_rcu(object, rcu_free);
>
> Is it safe?
>
> According to commit ae65a5211d90 ("mm/slab: document kfree() as allowed
> for kmem_cache_alloc() objects"), no change should be needed (and it
> must not be backported to kernels older than 6.4 with CONFIG_SLOB). This
> way we can avoid exporting landlock_object_cache. Please add a note
> about this commit and the related warning in the commit message.
>
> > > > + kmem_cache_free(landlock_object_cache, object);
> > > > }
> > > > }
> > > > diff --git a/security/landlock/object.h b/security/landlock/object.h
> > > > index 5f28c35e8aa8..8ba1af3ddc2e 100644
> > > > --- a/security/landlock/object.h
> > > > +++ b/security/landlock/object.h
> > > > @@ -13,6 +13,10 @@
> > > > #include <linux/refcount.h>
> > > > #include <linux/spinlock.h>
> > > >
> > > > +extern struct kmem_cache *landlock_object_cache;
> > >
> > > This really is a decision for Mickaël, but you may want to make
> > > @landlock_object_cache private to object.c and create functions to
> > > manage it as needed, e.g. put/free operations.
> > >
> > Okay. I didn't make it private as I was using it in fs.c to use
> > kmem_cache_free, but if this is supposed to be private, I can modify the
> > approach and expose it via some function, not directly exposing
> > landlock_object_cache.
>
> Yes, that would be better.
>
> > > > +void __init landlock_object_init(void);
> > > > +
> > > > struct landlock_object;
> > > >
> > > > /**
> > > > diff --git a/security/landlock/setup.c b/security/landlock/setup.c
> > > > index f6dd33143b7f..a5fca4582ee1 100644
> > >
> > > --
> > > paul-moore.com
> > I will make all the changes you mentioned, and as you said, I will
> > wait for Mickael's say.
>
> Agree with Paul and Greg unless commented otherwise. Thanks
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-03-29 2:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-03-27 23:25 [PATCH] LANDLOCK: use kmem_cache for landlock_object Ayush Tiwari
2024-03-27 23:43 ` Paul Moore
2024-03-28 7:53 ` Ayush Tiwari
2024-03-28 14:45 ` Mickaël Salaün
2024-03-29 2:19 ` Ayush Tiwari [this message]
2024-03-29 6:32 ` Ayush Tiwari
2024-03-28 6:08 ` Greg KH
2024-03-28 7:57 ` Ayush Tiwari
2024-03-28 6:39 ` Dan Carpenter
2024-03-29 2:14 ` Ayush Tiwari
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=ZgYlO8jGSH/6KTEe@ayush-HP-Pavilion-Gaming-Laptop-15-ec0xxx \
--to=ayushtiw0110@gmail.com \
--cc=alison.schofield@intel.com \
--cc=fabio.maria.de.francesco@linux.intel.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-staging@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=mic@digikod.net \
--cc=outreachy@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=paul@paul-moore.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;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).