Re: [2.6.16 PATCH] Filessytem Events Reporter V3

[Evgeniy Polyakov]

On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 04:59:18PM +0800, Yi Yang (yang.y.yi@xxxxxxxxx) wrote:

> >>+		if (skb->len >= FSEVENT_FILTER_MSGSIZE) {
> >>    
> >
> >I'm not sure about your size checks.
> >I think it should be compared with nlhdr->nlmsg_len?
> >  
> At this point, skb->len  should be the same as nlhdr->nlmsg_len.

Hmm, skb->len includes size of netlink header, but nlhdr->nlmsg_len does
not.

> >>+#define DEFINE_FILTER_MATCH_FUNC(filtertype, key) 			\
> >>+	static int match_##filtertype(listener * p,			\
> >>+				struct fsevent * event,			\
> >>+				struct sk_buff * skb)			\
> >>+	{								\
> >>+		int ret = 0;						\
> >>+		filtertype * xfilter = NULL;				\
> >>+		struct sk_buff * skb2 = NULL;				\
> >>+		struct list_head *  head = &(p->key##_filter_list_head);  \
> >>+		list_for_each_entry(xfilter, head, list) {		\
> >>+			if (xfilter->key != event->key)			\
> >>+				continue;				\
> >>+			ret = filter_fsevent(xfilter->mask, event->type); \
> >>+			if ( ret != 0)					\
> >>+				return -1;				\
> >>+			skb2 = skb_clone(skb, GFP_KERNEL);		\
> >>+       			if (skb2 == NULL)			 \
> >>    
> >
> >Coding style.
> >
> >  
> >>+				return -1;				\
> >>+			NETLINK_CB(skb2).dst_group = 0;			\
> >>+			NETLINK_CB(skb2).dst_pid = p->pid;		\
> >>+			NETLINK_CB(skb2).pid = 0;			\
> >>+			return (netlink_unicast(fsevent_sock, skb2,	\
> >>+					p->pid, MSG_DONTWAIT));		\
> >>+		}							\
> >>+		return -1;						\
> >>+	}								\
> >>+
> >>+DEFINE_FILTER_MATCH_FUNC(pid_filter, pid)
> >>+
> >>+DEFINE_FILTER_MATCH_FUNC(uid_filter, uid)
> >>+
> >>+DEFINE_FILTER_MATCH_FUNC(gid_filter, gid)
> >>    
> >
> >You send the same data for each type of filters, maybe it is design
> >approach, but why don't you want to send that data in one skb?
> >  
> netlink control block is not the same, netlink_broadcast is a typical case.

Yes, I see, pid is changed.

> >>+#define MATCH_XID(key, listenerp, event, skb) 			\
> >>+	ret = match_##key##_filter(listenerp, event, skb); 	\
> >>+	if (ret == 0) {					 	\
> >>+		kfree_skb(skb);				 	\
> >>+	        continue;				 	\
> >>    
> >
> >Your match funtions can not return 0.
> >  
> It can, if sending is successfull, netlink_unicast will return 0.

No, it returns skb->len on success.
netlink_broadcast() returns 0 on success.

> >>+static void __exit fsevent_exit(void)
> >>+{
> >>+	listener * p = NULL, * q = NULL;
> >>+	int cpu;
> >>+	int wait_flag = 0;
> >>+	struct sk_buff_head * skb_head = NULL;
> >>+
> >>+	fsevents_mask = 0;
> >>+	_raise_fsevent = 0;
> >>+	exit_flag = 1;
> >>+
> >>+	for_each_cpu(cpu)
> >>+		schedule_work(&per_cpu(fsevent_work, cpu));
> >>+
> >>+	while (1) {
> >>+		wait_flag = 0;
> >>+		for_each_cpu(cpu) {
> >>+			skb_head = &per_cpu(fsevent_send_queue, cpu);
> >>+			if (skb_head->qlen != 0) {
> >>+				wait_flag = 1;
> >>+				break;
> >>+			}
> >>+		}
> >>+		if (wait_flag == 1) {
> >>+			set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> >>+			schedule_timeout(HZ/10);
> >>+		} else
> >>+			break;
> >>+	}
> >>    
> >
> >This is still broken.
> >You race with schedule_work() in this loop. It requires
> >flush_scheduled_work().
> >
> >And I still have soume doubts about __raise_fsevent().
> >What if you set fsevents_mask to zero after __raise_fsevent() is
> >started, but not yet queued an skb, and above loop and scheduled work
> >are completed?
> >  
> I think it  is OK, schedule_timeout will release cpu to work queues, 
> work queues should have enough time
> to finish their works, I don't know what is your reason.

It is not guaranteed that scheduled work will be processed until
flush_scheduled_work() completion, no matter how many times processor
has idle cycles.

Second issue is that both above loop and work can be finished, but some
__raise_fsevent() will be still in progress.

> >You need some type of completion of the last worker...
> >
> >  
> >>+	atomic_set(&fsevent_sock->sk_rmem_alloc, 0);
> >>+	atomic_set(&fsevent_sock->sk_wmem_alloc, 0);
> >>    
> >
> >This is really wrong, since it hides skb processing errors like double
> >freeing or leaks.
> >  
> If userspace application terminated exceptionally, there are some skbs 
> not to be consumed on socket, so
> if you rmmod it, sock_release will report some failure information, the 
> above two statements will remove this
> error.

All queues will be flushed, when socket is freed, and if sock_release() shows
that assertion is failed, this definitely means you broke socket accounting, 
for example freed skb two times.

> >>+	sock_release(fsevent_sock->sk_socket);

...

> >Btw, it would be nice to have some kind of microbenchmark,
> >like http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/292755
> >just to see how things go...
> >  
> I have a userspace application to test fsevent, I'll release it to 
> community in order to find more issues on
> fsevent.

And please publish some numbers so people could make some prognosis of
system behaviour.

-- 
	Evgeniy Polyakov
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/