From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <io-uring-owner@kernel.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on
aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,
SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0
Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99])
by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E260CC47082
for <io-uring@archiver.kernel.org>; Wed, 26 May 2021 18:44:44 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18])
by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C71346102A
for <io-uring@archiver.kernel.org>; Wed, 26 May 2021 18:44:44 +0000 (UTC)
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
id S235610AbhEZSqP (ORCPT <rfc822;io-uring@archiver.kernel.org>);
Wed, 26 May 2021 14:46:15 -0400
Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:35218 "EHLO
lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
with ESMTP id S235612AbhEZSqO (ORCPT
<rfc822;io-uring@vger.kernel.org>); Wed, 26 May 2021 14:46:14 -0400
Received: from mail-ej1-x632.google.com (mail-ej1-x632.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::632])
by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9FECEC061756
for <io-uring@vger.kernel.org>; Wed, 26 May 2021 11:44:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ej1-x632.google.com with SMTP id f18so4011825ejq.10
for <io-uring@vger.kernel.org>; Wed, 26 May 2021 11:44:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=paul-moore-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623;
h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to
:cc;
bh=y5hc1lB5zTME3aYydIbRBcof2PiNcOpgJpiSa1+Oo68=;
b=Y4WtVfliMwdMrfnlRBY+YbJuWT0ZpakW7StdgI02ms3YppRCGkk4Fz+6Tgu21CmjKb
tWlU/TEBHCILdvMelT+pCmoZbvP4KtBq/T5rnooWK1yJipnUE6A+7AcfSw9wDwB6kvyi
Fy82U4yxHSune8+yw9vRKSLnL1K9MH9q8L7XMWLzaNNq211CtgZkVKYzYK1bFJ1XLGaI
AcfT9thw4kfUj9oyLxIjUucedj/JKp79TaYoOOyAt3DwWKyobBNhI+NxgCer506v7IEi
/jSSo5/URadRuVSpJaRACbcBCNFJsSMVwTJT15fnSNy8NjqJDU3MVK+9v+QEsyq513Uh
pUEA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date
:message-id:subject:to:cc;
bh=y5hc1lB5zTME3aYydIbRBcof2PiNcOpgJpiSa1+Oo68=;
b=BHqehkhZmRjIj8XNu0F+N5GcvEntqXPz/w1BCRqPaMCm9BFkp6yYbJTAj/GCb92ha2
PTl9by9dUkLnildBUovOFmW8qt5gQ1EFJ5iqiry1NnE3hixAKym9ekSl0kZsAJjuDBUH
m2f14znEk3wiS/4qJENAs7oEuZLpbfiNm482xamHdZCo9bbBF7UwtY7cv7eYdskUiFZH
VSR7C6WYWYbKFCef1JX9viKg6ruXoAA8MYa9GZmUdgOwOQLwPWakS53hju0H73vgkJLX
OX/SF7ULvjrJZJhjFVMs1MhNR9kwzYMD3wdEnzw64cpqMB6CvYuco+PxV/g9pXdNDEGy
mA+w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533or4oPJuOia1D9clETI7JNoW+L23N0bd7wUh5y1cz5497JM7Mm
CIGEBM/EJIRBSfAH2+3pQZXabY6rj+qyrjITURX9
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx3f2fYRf1XUrHxqhJbfeRNdB4G8SDETCWKvTSo/6QYapX3mqm70ppiB1uPLoMxAzlsWe8ZlResAmsGsBGMdjo=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:9e21:: with SMTP id fp33mr34926566ejc.488.1622054680028;
Wed, 26 May 2021 11:44:40 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <162163367115.8379.8459012634106035341.stgit@sifl>
<162163379461.8379.9691291608621179559.stgit@sifl> <f07bd213-6656-7516-9099-c6ecf4174519@gmail.com>
<CAHC9VhRjzWxweB8d8fypUx11CX6tRBnxSWbXH+5qM1virE509A@mail.gmail.com>
<162219f9-7844-0c78-388f-9b5c06557d06@gmail.com> <CAHC9VhSJuddB+6GPS1+mgcuKahrR3UZA=1iO8obFzfRE7_E0gA@mail.gmail.com>
<8943629d-3c69-3529-ca79-d7f8e2c60c16@kernel.dk> <CAHC9VhTYBsh4JHhqV0Uyz=H5cEYQw48xOo=CUdXV0gDvyifPOQ@mail.gmail.com>
<9e69e4b6-2b87-a688-d604-c7f70be894f5@kernel.dk> <3bef7c8a-ee70-d91d-74db-367ad0137d00@kernel.dk>
<fa7bf4a5-5975-3e8c-99b4-c8d54c57da10@kernel.dk> <a7669e4a-e7a7-7e94-f6ce-fa48311f7175@kernel.dk>
In-Reply-To: <a7669e4a-e7a7-7e94-f6ce-fa48311f7175@kernel.dk>
From: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
Date: Wed, 26 May 2021 14:44:29 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHC9VhSKPzADh=qcPp7r7ZVD2cpr2m8kQsui43LAwPr-9BNaxQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/9] audit,io_uring,io-wq: add some basic audit
support to io_uring
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Cc: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@gmail.com>,
linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, selinux@vger.kernel.org,
linux-audit@redhat.com, io-uring@vger.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>,
Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <io-uring.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: io-uring@vger.kernel.org
On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 2:01 PM Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> wrote:
> On 5/26/21 11:54 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On 5/26/21 11:31 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >> On 5/26/21 11:15 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >>> On 5/25/21 8:04 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 9:11 PM Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> wrote:
> >>>>> On 5/24/21 1:59 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
> >>>>>> That said, audit is not for everyone, and we have build time and
> >>>>>> runtime options to help make life easier. Beyond simply disabling
> >>>>>> audit at compile time a number of Linux distributions effectively
> >>>>>> shortcut audit at runtime by adding a "never" rule to the audit
> >>>>>> filter, for example:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> % auditctl -a task,never
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As has been brought up, the issue we're facing is that distros have
> >>>>> CONFIG_AUDIT=y and hence the above is the best real world case outside
> >>>>> of people doing custom kernels. My question would then be how much
> >>>>> overhead the above will add, considering it's an entry/exit call per op.
> >>>>> If auditctl is turned off, what is the expectation in turns of overhead?
> >>>>
> >>>> I commented on that case in my last email to Pavel, but I'll try to go
> >>>> over it again in a little more detail.
> >>>>
> >>>> As we discussed earlier in this thread, we can skip the req->opcode
> >>>> check before both the _entry and _exit calls, so we are left with just
> >>>> the bare audit calls in the io_uring code. As the _entry and _exit
> >>>> functions are small, I've copied them and their supporting functions
> >>>> below and I'll try to explain what would happen in CONFIG_AUDIT=y,
> >>>> "task,never" case.
> >>>>
> >>>> + static inline struct audit_context *audit_context(void)
> >>>> + {
> >>>> + return current->audit_context;
> >>>> + }
> >>>>
> >>>> + static inline bool audit_dummy_context(void)
> >>>> + {
> >>>> + void *p = audit_context();
> >>>> + return !p || *(int *)p;
> >>>> + }
> >>>>
> >>>> + static inline void audit_uring_entry(u8 op)
> >>>> + {
> >>>> + if (unlikely(audit_enabled && audit_context()))
> >>>> + __audit_uring_entry(op);
> >>>> + }
> >>>>
> >>>> We have one if statement where the conditional checks on two
> >>>> individual conditions. The first (audit_enabled) is simply a check to
> >>>> see if anyone has "turned on" auditing at runtime; historically this
> >>>> worked rather well, and still does in a number of places, but ever
> >>>> since systemd has taken to forcing audit on regardless of the admin's
> >>>> audit configuration it is less useful. The second (audit_context())
> >>>> is a check to see if an audit_context has been allocated for the
> >>>> current task. In the case of "task,never" current->audit_context will
> >>>> be NULL (see audit_alloc()) and the __audit_uring_entry() slowpath
> >>>> will never be called.
> >>>>
> >>>> Worst case here is checking the value of audit_enabled and
> >>>> current->audit_context. Depending on which you think is more likely
> >>>> we can change the order of the check so that the
> >>>> current->audit_context check is first if you feel that is more likely
> >>>> to be NULL than audit_enabled is to be false (it may be that way now).
> >>>>
> >>>> + static inline void audit_uring_exit(int success, long code)
> >>>> + {
> >>>> + if (unlikely(!audit_dummy_context()))
> >>>> + __audit_uring_exit(success, code);
> >>>> + }
> >>>>
> >>>> The exit call is very similar to the entry call, but in the
> >>>> "task,never" case it is very simple as the first check to be performed
> >>>> is the current->audit_context check which we know to be NULL. The
> >>>> __audit_uring_exit() slowpath will never be called.
> >>>
> >>> I actually ran some numbers this morning. The test base is 5.13+, and
> >>> CONFIG_AUDIT=y and CONFIG_AUDITSYSCALL=y is set for both the baseline
> >>> test and the test with this series applied. I used your git branch as of
> >>> this morning.
> >>>
> >>> The test case is my usual peak perf test, which is random reads at
> >>> QD=128 and using polled IO. It's a single core test, not threaded. I ran
> >>> two different tests - one was having a thread just do the IO, the other
> >>> is using SQPOLL to do the IO for us. The device is capable than more
> >>> IOPS than a single core can deliver, so we're CPU limited in this test.
> >>> Hence it's a good test case as it does actual work, and shows software
> >>> overhead quite nicely. Runs are very stable (less than 0.5% difference
> >>> between runs on the same base), yet I did average 4 runs.
> >>>
> >>> Kernel SQPOLL IOPS Perf diff
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------
> >>> 5.13 0 3029872 0.0%
> >>> 5.13 1 3031056 0.0%
> >>> 5.13 + audit 0 2894160 -4.5%
> >>> 5.13 + audit 1 2886168 -4.8%
> >>>
> >>> That's an immediate drop in perf of almost 5%. Looking at a quick
> >>> profile of it (nothing fancy, just checking for 'audit' in the profile)
> >>> shows this:
> >>>
> >>> + 2.17% io_uring [kernel.vmlinux] [k] __audit_uring_entry
> >>> + 0.71% io_uring [kernel.vmlinux] [k] __audit_uring_exit
> >>> 0.07% io_uring [kernel.vmlinux] [k] __audit_syscall_entry
> >>> 0.02% io_uring [kernel.vmlinux] [k] __audit_syscall_exit
> >>>
> >>> Note that this is with _no_ rules!
> >>
> >> io_uring also supports a NOP command, which basically just measures
> >> reqs/sec through the interface. Ran that as well:
> >>
> >> Kernel SQPOLL IOPS Perf diff
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------
> >> 5.13 0 31.05M 0.0%
> >> 5.13 + audit 0 25.31M -18.5%
> >>
> >> and profile for the latter includes:
> >>
> >> + 5.19% io_uring [kernel.vmlinux] [k] __audit_uring_entry
> >> + 4.31% io_uring [kernel.vmlinux] [k] __audit_uring_exit
> >> 0.26% io_uring [kernel.vmlinux] [k] __audit_syscall_entry
> >> 0.08% io_uring [kernel.vmlinux] [k] __audit_syscall_exit
> >
> > As Pavel correctly pointed it, looks like auditing is enabled. And
> > indeed it was! Hence the above numbers is without having turned off
> > auditing. Running the NOPs after having turned off audit, we get 30.6M
> > IOPS, which is down about 1.5% from the baseline. The results for the
> > polled random read test above did _not_ change from this, they are still
> > down the same amount.
> >
> > Note, and I should have included this in the first email, this is not
> > any kind of argument for or against audit logging. It's purely meant to
> > be a set of numbers that show how the current series impacts
> > performance.
>
> And finally, just checking if we make it optional per opcode if we see
> any real impact, and the answer is no. Using the below patch which
> effectively bypasses audit calls unless the opcode has flagged the need
> to do so, I cannot measure any difference in perf (as expected).
>
> To turn this into something useful, my suggestion as a viable path
> forward would be:
>
> 1) Use something like the below patch and flag request types that we
> want to do audit logging for.
>
> 2) As Pavel suggested, eliminate the need for having both and entry/exit
> hook, turning it into just one. That effectively cuts the number of
> checks and calls in half.
I suspect the updated working-io_uring branch with HEAD at
1f25193a3f54 (updated a short time ago, see my last email in this
thread) will improve performance. Also, as has been mention several
times now, for audit to work we need both the _entry and _exit call.
--
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com