netdev - Re: [RFC] NETDEV_UNREGISTER_BATCH seems unused nowaday ?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 10 Aug 2012 10:55:16 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] NETDEV_UNREGISTER_BATCH seems unused nowaday ?

On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 07:45:48AM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> writes:
> 
> > On Fri, 2012-08-10 at 03:42 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> >> From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
> >> Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 11:27:04 +0200
> >> 
> >> > NETDEV_UNREGISTER_BATCH seems unused we can probably remove it.
> >> 
> >> Indeed, the routing cache was the final real user.
> >> 
> >> > I am tracking a device refcount issue, delaying net device dismantle by
> >> > 1 second in netdev_wait_allrefs()
> >> > 
> >> > I guess we need to add a notifier called _after_ the final
> >> > synchronize_net() in rollback_registered_many()
> >> 
> >> It's essentially caused by DST_GC_INC, right?
> >
> > No, we in fact need a rcu_barrier(), then another call to
> > dst_dev_event().
> >
> > rcu_barrier() is needed so that in-flight call_rcu() of routes (from
> > rt_free()) are completed. Or else we miss these dst in the
> > dst_dev_event().
> 
> > I have a working patch, adding the rcu_barrier() and one additional
> > NETDEV_UNREGISTER_FINAL event.
> 
> Can someone help bring me up to speed.  What has changed in the
> dst ref counting that has invalidated our previous solutions?
> 
> As for the idea of putting an rcu_barrier inside of the rtnl_lock.  I
> really don't like it. You are trading off a 1000ms singled threaded wait
> without locks for extending the hold times of rtnl lock by 12ms or so.
> 
> We already have an rcu_barrier on that path in netdev_run_todo,
> so we can reorganize things to use that barrier I would be much
> happer.  Furthermore I talked to Paul McKenney a while ago
> about creating an rcu_barrier expedited and he really did not
> like the idea.

For whatever it is worth, I do have rcu_barrier_expedited() on my list
of things that at least one person has expressed interest in, but that
I do not yet have a good solution for.  Obstacles include the following:

1.	If a given CPU has lots of callbacks, but is running a real-time
	process, what do you do?  (a) Hammer the real-time process?
	(b) Make rcu_barrier_expedited() wait (current likely choice)?
	(c) Handle via a set priority for callback processing (which
	might be the case for BOOST_RCU builds)?  (d) Force migration
	of the callbacks (mmmaybe...)?  (e) Force migration of the
	real-time process (ouch!)?

2.	Ditto, but huge numbers of callbacks and non-realtime processes.
	Similar solution space.

3.	There will be some real-time disruption from any reasonable
	implementation of rcu_barrier_expedited().  Maybe the RT
	guys choose to map it to rcu_barrier()?

On the other hand, in the same email thread back in May you were also
looking for a kmem_cache_free_rcu().  At the time I didn't have a
good solution for this, but I do believe that I have one now.  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul

> Reading through the code we really should get dst_rcu_free
> out of the header and make it non-line.  dst_rcu_free can't
> possibly be called from a location where it can be inlined.
> 
> Trying to understand your analysis I have stared at the code for
> a while and I am definitely not seeing any rcu callbacks that
> result in calling rt_free.  So one of us is missing something.
> 
> All I am seeing from your trace is one call of rtnetlink_dev_notifier
> the refcount is at 7 and the next call of rtnetlink_dev_notifier the
> refcnt has dropped to 1.
> 
> Eric
> 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html