| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2013 18:39:03 -0800
From: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>
To: Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@...wei.com>
cc: Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...hat.com>,
Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...hat.com>,
Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 6/11] bonding: rebuild the lock use for bond_activebackup_arp_mon()
Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@...wei.com> wrote:
>The bond_activebackup_arp_mon() use the bond lock for read to
>protect the slave list, it is no effect, and the RTNL is only
>called for bond_ab_arp_commit() and peer notify, for the performance
>better, use RCU to replace with the bond lock, to the bond slave
>list need to called in RCU, add a new bond_first_slave_rcu()
>to get the first slave in RCU protection.
>
>In bond_ab_arp_probe(), the bond->current_arp_slave may changd
>if bond release slave, just like:
>
> bond_ab_arp_probe() bond_release()
> cpu 0 cpu 1
> ...
> if (bond->current_arp_slave...) ...
> ... bond->current_arp_slave = NULl
> bond->current_arp_slave->dev->name ...
>
>So the current_arp_slave need to dereference in the section.
>
>When bond_ab_arp_inspect() and should_notify_peers is true, the
>RTNL will called twice, it is a loss of performance, so make the
>two RTNL together to avoid performance loss.
Just for the record, we cannot acquire RTNL every single pass of
the monitor (at typically ten per second), but the situation you cite is
rare, and the performance impact of two round trips on RTNL is minimal.
That said, if the code is clear, there's no disadvantage with arranging
for just one round trip on RTNL.
In patch 2 of the series you reorganized the RTNL locking around
the inspect / notify_peers logic in bond_mii_monitor to be generally:
if (inspect) {
[ acquire RTNL ]
[ do commit activity, et al ]
if (should_notify_peers)
call_netdevice_notifiers(NETDEV_NOTIFY_PEERS);
[ release RNTL ]
} else {
if (should_notify_peers) {
[ acquire RTNL ]
call_netdevice_notifiers(NETDEV_NOTIFY_PEERS);
[ release RTNL ]
}
}
but in this patch, the new logic in bond_activebackup_arp_mon
is:
if (inspect) {
[ acquire RTNL ]
[ do commit activity, et al ]
if (should_notify_peers) {
call_netdevice_notifiers(NETDEV_NOTIFY_PEERS);
should_notify_peers = false;
}
[ release RNTL ]
}
[ ... ]
re_arm:
if (should_notify_peers) {
[ acquire RTNL ]
call_netdevice_notifiers(NETDEV_NOTIFY_PEERS);
[ release RTNL ]
}
Is there a reason not to have these both operate the same way?
I found the version in bond_mii_monitor (from patch 2 of the
series) easier to follow than this version for bond_activebackup_arp_mon
(because the two calls are closer together, and the "should_notify_peers
= false" is easy to miss on a first read).
-J
>Suggested-by: Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...hat.com>
>Suggested-by: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>
>Suggested-by: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...hat.com>
>Signed-off-by: Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@...wei.com>
>---
> drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c | 49 +++++++++++++++++++++--------------------
> 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
>
>diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
>index 1f5e709..d9bb5ee 100644
>--- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
>+++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
>@@ -2521,7 +2521,7 @@ re_arm:
> * place for the slave. Returns 0 if no changes are found, >0 if changes
> * to link states must be committed.
> *
>- * Called with bond->lock held for read.
>+ * Called with rcu_read_lock hold.
> */
> static int bond_ab_arp_inspect(struct bonding *bond)
> {
>@@ -2530,7 +2530,7 @@ static int bond_ab_arp_inspect(struct bonding *bond)
> struct slave *slave;
> int commit = 0;
>
>- bond_for_each_slave(bond, slave, iter) {
>+ bond_for_each_slave_rcu(bond, slave, iter) {
> slave->new_link = BOND_LINK_NOCHANGE;
> last_rx = slave_last_rx(bond, slave);
>
>@@ -2592,7 +2592,7 @@ static int bond_ab_arp_inspect(struct bonding *bond)
> * Called to commit link state changes noted by inspection step of
> * active-backup mode ARP monitor.
> *
>- * Called with RTNL and bond->lock for read.
>+ * Called with RTNL hold.
> */
> static void bond_ab_arp_commit(struct bonding *bond)
> {
>@@ -2667,19 +2667,20 @@ do_failover:
> /*
> * Send ARP probes for active-backup mode ARP monitor.
> *
>- * Called with bond->lock held for read.
>+ * Called with rcu_read_lock hold.
> */
> static void bond_ab_arp_probe(struct bonding *bond)
> {
>- struct slave *slave, *before = NULL, *new_slave = NULL;
>+ struct slave *slave, *before = NULL, *new_slave = NULL,
>+ *curr_arp_slave = rcu_dereference(bond->current_arp_slave);
> struct list_head *iter;
> bool found = false;
>
> read_lock(&bond->curr_slave_lock);
>
>- if (bond->current_arp_slave && bond->curr_active_slave)
>+ if (curr_arp_slave && bond->curr_active_slave)
> pr_info("PROBE: c_arp %s && cas %s BAD\n",
>- bond->current_arp_slave->dev->name,
>+ curr_arp_slave->dev->name,
> bond->curr_active_slave->dev->name);
>
> if (bond->curr_active_slave) {
>@@ -2695,15 +2696,15 @@ static void bond_ab_arp_probe(struct bonding *bond)
> * for becoming the curr_active_slave
> */
>
>- if (!bond->current_arp_slave) {
>- bond->current_arp_slave = bond_first_slave(bond);
>- if (!bond->current_arp_slave)
>+ if (!curr_arp_slave) {
>+ curr_arp_slave = bond_first_slave_rcu(bond);
>+ if (!curr_arp_slave)
> return;
> }
>
>- bond_set_slave_inactive_flags(bond->current_arp_slave);
>+ bond_set_slave_inactive_flags(curr_arp_slave);
>
>- bond_for_each_slave(bond, slave, iter) {
>+ bond_for_each_slave_rcu(bond, slave, iter) {
> if (!found && !before && IS_UP(slave->dev))
> before = slave;
>
>@@ -2726,7 +2727,7 @@ static void bond_ab_arp_probe(struct bonding *bond)
> pr_info("%s: backup interface %s is now down.\n",
> bond->dev->name, slave->dev->name);
> }
>- if (slave == bond->current_arp_slave)
>+ if (slave == curr_arp_slave)
> found = true;
> }
>
>@@ -2740,8 +2741,7 @@ static void bond_ab_arp_probe(struct bonding *bond)
> bond_set_slave_active_flags(new_slave);
> bond_arp_send_all(bond, new_slave);
> new_slave->jiffies = jiffies;
>- bond->current_arp_slave = new_slave;
>-
>+ rcu_assign_pointer(bond->current_arp_slave, new_slave);
> }
>
> void bond_activebackup_arp_mon(struct work_struct *work)
>@@ -2751,17 +2751,17 @@ void bond_activebackup_arp_mon(struct work_struct *work)
> bool should_notify_peers = false;
> int delta_in_ticks;
>
>- read_lock(&bond->lock);
>-
> delta_in_ticks = msecs_to_jiffies(bond->params.arp_interval);
>
> if (!bond_has_slaves(bond))
> goto re_arm;
>
>+ rcu_read_lock();
>+
> should_notify_peers = bond_should_notify_peers(bond);
>
> if (bond_ab_arp_inspect(bond)) {
>- read_unlock(&bond->lock);
>+ rcu_read_unlock();
>
> /* Race avoidance with bond_close flush of workqueue */
> if (!rtnl_trylock()) {
>@@ -2771,23 +2771,24 @@ void bond_activebackup_arp_mon(struct work_struct *work)
> goto re_arm;
> }
>
>- read_lock(&bond->lock);
>-
> bond_ab_arp_commit(bond);
>+ if (should_notify_peers) {
>+ call_netdevice_notifiers(NETDEV_NOTIFY_PEERS,
>+ bond->dev);
>+ should_notify_peers = false;
>+ }
>
>- read_unlock(&bond->lock);
> rtnl_unlock();
>- read_lock(&bond->lock);
>+ rcu_read_lock();
> }
>
> bond_ab_arp_probe(bond);
>+ rcu_read_unlock();
>
> re_arm:
> if (bond->params.arp_interval)
> queue_delayed_work(bond->wq, &bond->arp_work, delta_in_ticks);
>
>- read_unlock(&bond->lock);
>-
> if (should_notify_peers) {
> if (!rtnl_trylock())
> return;
>--
>1.8.2.1
---
-Jay Vosburgh, IBM Linux Technology Center, fubar@...ibm.com
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists