Hi Paul, Thanks for your quick review! On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 4:22 PM Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 6:43 PM Song Liu <song@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > inode->i_security needes to be freed from RCU callback. A rcu_head was > > added to i_security to call the RCU callback. However, since struct inode > > already has i_rcu, the extra rcu_head is wasteful. Specifically, when any > > LSM uses i_security, a rcu_head (two pointers) is allocated for each > > inode. > > > > Add security_inode_free_rcu() to i_callback to free i_security so that > > a rcu_head is saved for each inode. Special care are needed for file > > systems that provide a destroy_inode() callback, but not a free_inode() > > callback. Specifically, the following logic are added to handle such > > cases: > > > > - XFS recycles inode after destroy_inode. The inodes are freed from > > recycle logic. Let xfs_inode_free_callback() and xfs_inode_alloc() > > call security_inode_free_rcu() before freeing the inode. > > - Let pipe free inode from a RCU callback. > > - Let btrfs-test free inode from a RCU callback. > > If I recall correctly, historically the vfs devs have pushed back on > filesystem specific changes such as this, requiring LSM hooks to > operate at the VFS layer unless there was absolutely no other choice. > > From a LSM perspective I'm also a little concerned that this approach > is too reliant on individual filesystems doing the right thing with > respect to LSM hooks which I worry will result in some ugly bugs in > the future. Totally agree with the concerns. However, given the savings is quite significant (saving two pointers per inode), I think the it may justify the extra effort to maintain the logic. Note that, some LSMs are enabled in most systems and cannot be easily disabled, so I am assuming most systems will see the savings. Thanks, Song
