[RFC][PATCH] mount: In mark_umount_candidates and __propogate_umount visit each mount once
Andrei Vagin
avagin at virtuozzo.com
Thu Oct 13 21:46:51 UTC 2016
On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 02:53:46PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> Adrei Vagin pointed out that time to executue propagate_umount can go
> non-linear (and take a ludicrious amount of time) when the mount
> propogation trees of the mounts to be unmunted by a lazy unmount
> overlap.
>
> Solve this in the most straight forward way possible, by adding a new
> mount flag to mark parts of the mount propagation tree that have been
> visited, and use that mark to skip parts of the mount propagation tree
> that have already been visited during an unmount. This guarantees
> that each mountpoint in the possibly overlapping mount propagation
> trees will be visited exactly once.
>
> Add the functions propagation_visit_next and propagation_revisit_next
> to coordinate setting and clearling the visited mount mark.
>
> Here is a script to generate such mount tree:
> $ cat run.sh
> mount -t tmpfs test-mount /mnt
> mount --make-shared /mnt
> for i in `seq $1`; do
> mkdir /mnt/test.$i
> mount --bind /mnt /mnt/test.$i
> done
> cat /proc/mounts | grep test-mount | wc -l
> time umount -l /mnt
> $ for i in `seq 10 16`; do echo $i; unshare -Urm bash ./run.sh $i; done
>
> Here are the performance numbers with and without the patch:
>
> mounts | before | after (real sec)
> -----------------------------
> 1024 | 0.071 | 0.024
> 2048 | 0.184 | 0.030
> 4096 | 0.604 | 0.040
> 8912 | 4.471 | 0.043
> 16384 | 34.826 | 0.082
> 32768 | | 0.151
> 65536 | | 0.289
> 131072 | | 0.659
>
> Andrei Vagin fixing this performance problem is part of the
> work to fix CVE-2016-6213.
>
> Cc: stable at vger.kernel.org
> Reported-by: Andrei Vagin <avagin at openvz.org>
> Signed-off-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm at xmission.com>
> ---
>
> Andrei can you take a look at this patch and see if you can see any
> problems. My limited testing suggests this approach does a much better
> job of solving the problem you were seeing. With the time looking
> almost linear in the number of mounts now.
I read this patch and I like the idea.
Then I run my tests and one of them doesn't work with this patch.
I haven't found a reason yet.
Here is the test:
[root at fc24 mounts]# cat run.sh
set -e
mount -t tmpfs zdtm /mnt
mkdir -p /mnt/1 /mnt/2
mount -t tmpfs zdtm /mnt/1
mount --make-shared /mnt/1
for i in `seq $1`; do
mount --bind /mnt/1 `mktemp -d /mnt/1/test.XXXXXX`
done
mount --rbind /mnt/1 /mnt/2
cat /proc/self/mountinfo | grep zdtm | wc -l
time umount -l /mnt/1
cat /proc/self/mountinfo | grep zdtm | wc -l
umount /mnt/2
[root at fc24 mounts]# unshare -Urm ./run.sh 5
65
real 0m0.014s
user 0m0.000s
sys 0m0.004s
33
umount: /mnt/2: target is busy
(In some cases useful info about processes that
use the device is found by lsof(8) or fuser(1).)
>
> fs/pnode.c | 125 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> fs/pnode.h | 4 ++
> include/linux/mount.h | 2 +
> 3 files changed, 126 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/pnode.c b/fs/pnode.c
> index 234a9ac49958..3acce0c75f94 100644
> --- a/fs/pnode.c
> +++ b/fs/pnode.c
> @@ -164,6 +164,120 @@ static struct mount *propagation_next(struct mount *m,
> }
> }
>
> +/*
> + * get the next mount in the propagation tree (that has not been visited)
> + * @m: the mount seen last
> + * @origin: the original mount from where the tree walk initiated
> + *
> + * Note that peer groups form contiguous segments of slave lists.
> + * We rely on that in get_source() to be able to find out if
> + * vfsmount found while iterating with propagation_next() is
> + * a peer of one we'd found earlier.
> + */
> +static struct mount *propagation_visit_next(struct mount *m,
> + struct mount *origin)
> +{
> + /* Has this part of the propgation tree already been visited? */
> + if (IS_MNT_VISITED(m))
> + return NULL;
> +
> + SET_MNT_VISITED(m);
> +
> + /* are there any slaves of this mount? */
> + if (!list_empty(&m->mnt_slave_list)) {
> + struct mount *slave = first_slave(m);
> + while (1) {
> + if (!IS_MNT_VISITED(slave))
> + return slave;
> + if (slave->mnt_slave.next == &m->mnt_slave_list)
> + break;
> + slave = next_slave(slave);
> + }
> + }
> + while (1) {
> + struct mount *master = m->mnt_master;
> +
> + if (master == origin->mnt_master) {
> + struct mount *next = next_peer(m);
> + while (1) {
> + if (next == origin)
> + return NULL;
> + if (!IS_MNT_VISITED(next))
> + return next;
> + next = next_peer(next);
> + }
> + } else {
> + while (1) {
> + if (m->mnt_slave.next == &master->mnt_slave_list)
> + break;
> + m = next_slave(m);
> + if (!IS_MNT_VISITED(m))
> + return m;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + /* back at master */
> + m = master;
> + }
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * get the next mount in the propagation tree (that has not been revisited)
> + * @m: the mount seen last
> + * @origin: the original mount from where the tree walk initiated
> + *
> + * Note that peer groups form contiguous segments of slave lists.
> + * We rely on that in get_source() to be able to find out if
> + * vfsmount found while iterating with propagation_next() is
> + * a peer of one we'd found earlier.
> + */
> +static struct mount *propagation_revisit_next(struct mount *m,
> + struct mount *origin)
> +{
> + /* Has this part of the propgation tree already been revisited? */
> + if (!IS_MNT_VISITED(m))
> + return NULL;
> +
> + CLEAR_MNT_VISITED(m);
> +
> + /* are there any slaves of this mount? */
> + if (!list_empty(&m->mnt_slave_list)) {
> + struct mount *slave = first_slave(m);
> + while (1) {
> + if (IS_MNT_VISITED(slave))
> + return slave;
> + if (slave->mnt_slave.next == &m->mnt_slave_list)
> + break;
> + slave = next_slave(slave);
> + }
> + }
> + while (1) {
> + struct mount *master = m->mnt_master;
> +
> + if (master == origin->mnt_master) {
> + struct mount *next = next_peer(m);
> + while (1) {
> + if (next == origin)
> + return NULL;
> + if (IS_MNT_VISITED(next))
> + return next;
> + next = next_peer(next);
> + }
> + } else {
> + while (1) {
> + if (m->mnt_slave.next == &master->mnt_slave_list)
> + break;
> + m = next_slave(m);
> + if (IS_MNT_VISITED(m))
> + return m;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + /* back at master */
> + m = master;
> + }
> +}
> +
> static struct mount *next_group(struct mount *m, struct mount *origin)
> {
> while (1) {
> @@ -399,11 +513,12 @@ static void mark_umount_candidates(struct mount *mnt)
>
> BUG_ON(parent == mnt);
>
> - for (m = propagation_next(parent, parent); m;
> - m = propagation_next(m, parent)) {
> + for (m = propagation_visit_next(parent, parent); m;
> + m = propagation_visit_next(m, parent)) {
> struct mount *child = __lookup_mnt_last(&m->mnt,
> mnt->mnt_mountpoint);
> - if (child && (!IS_MNT_LOCKED(child) || IS_MNT_MARKED(m))) {
> + if (child && (!IS_MNT_LOCKED(child) ||
> + IS_MNT_MARKED(m))) {
> SET_MNT_MARK(child);
> }
> }
> @@ -420,8 +535,8 @@ static void __propagate_umount(struct mount *mnt)
>
> BUG_ON(parent == mnt);
>
> - for (m = propagation_next(parent, parent); m;
> - m = propagation_next(m, parent)) {
> + for (m = propagation_revisit_next(parent, parent); m;
> + m = propagation_revisit_next(m, parent)) {
>
> struct mount *child = __lookup_mnt_last(&m->mnt,
> mnt->mnt_mountpoint);
> diff --git a/fs/pnode.h b/fs/pnode.h
> index 550f5a8b4fcf..988ea4945764 100644
> --- a/fs/pnode.h
> +++ b/fs/pnode.h
> @@ -21,6 +21,10 @@
> #define CLEAR_MNT_MARK(m) ((m)->mnt.mnt_flags &= ~MNT_MARKED)
> #define IS_MNT_LOCKED(m) ((m)->mnt.mnt_flags & MNT_LOCKED)
>
> +#define IS_MNT_VISITED(m) ((m)->mnt.mnt_flags & MNT_VISITED)
> +#define SET_MNT_VISITED(m) ((m)->mnt.mnt_flags |= MNT_VISITED)
> +#define CLEAR_MNT_VISITED(m) ((m)->mnt.mnt_flags &= ~MNT_VISITED)
> +
> #define CL_EXPIRE 0x01
> #define CL_SLAVE 0x02
> #define CL_COPY_UNBINDABLE 0x04
> diff --git a/include/linux/mount.h b/include/linux/mount.h
> index 9227b190fdf2..6048045b96c3 100644
> --- a/include/linux/mount.h
> +++ b/include/linux/mount.h
> @@ -52,6 +52,8 @@ struct mnt_namespace;
>
> #define MNT_INTERNAL 0x4000
>
> +#define MNT_VISITED 0x010000
> +
> #define MNT_LOCK_ATIME 0x040000
> #define MNT_LOCK_NOEXEC 0x080000
> #define MNT_LOCK_NOSUID 0x100000
> --
> 2.8.3
>
More information about the Containers
mailing list