Date:	Mon, 30 Mar 2015 17:02:23 -0700
From:	Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...hat.com>
To:	Cong Wang <cwang@...pensource.com>
CC:	Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Patch net-next] fib: move fib_rules_cleanup_ops() under rtnl
 lock


On 03/30/2015 04:47 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 3:12 PM, Alexander Duyck
> <alexander.h.duyck@...hat.com> wrote:
>> On 03/27/2015 02:17 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 2:08 PM, Alexander Duyck
>>> <alexander.h.duyck@...hat.com> wrote:
>>>> This locking issue, if present, is separate from the original issue you
>>>> reported.  I'm going to submit a patch to fix your original issue and you
>>>> can chase this locking issue down separately if that is what you want to
>>>> do.
>>> Make sure you really read my changelog, in case you don't:
>>>
>>> "
>>> ops->rules_list is protected by rtnl_lock + RCU,
>>> there is no reason to take net->rules_mod_lock here.
>>> Also, ops->delete() needs to be called with rtnl_lock
>>> too. The problem exists before, just it is exposed
>>> recently due to the fib local/main table change.
>>> "
>>>
>>> Sometimes people more easily miss the most obvious thing,
>>> which is the first sentences of my changelog.
>>
>> I got that, but you are arguing in circles.  In the case of fib4 we already
>> held the rtnl lock when all of this was called.  The delete bit only really
>> applies to fib4 since that is the only rules setup that seems to implement
>> that function.  As I said your "fix" was obscuring the original issue.  The
>> original issue was that we were allocating in a cleanup path.  That is the
>> first thing that needs to be fixed.
> I never said it is a fib4-only issue, ops->rules_list is generic.
> I know you don't care about anything beyond fib4, I do. :)
>
>
>> The rtnl_lock or not is a secondary issue.  It may be a fix but it doesn't
>> really address the original problem which was allocating in a cleanup path.
>>
> Unless you understand there are two original problems...
>
>
>>>> This way if someone ever decides to backport it they can actually fix the
>>>> original issue without pulling in speculative fixes for the rtnl locking
>>>> problem since we were already holding the lock for fib4.
>>>>
>>> Backporting is my guess of Thomas's point, you go too far beyond it.
>>
>> Backporting wasn't his issue.  From what I can tell he was okay with pulling
>> the fib_rules_cleanup_ops outside of the rules_mode_lock, I am as well since
>> I believe that is only there because that used to be in a loop that would
>> walk through a list looking for ops in order to delete it.  Since the list
>> walk is gone you could just hold the lock for the list_del_rcu and you are
>> good.
>
> Quote from my previous reply:
> "
> I know ops is removed from the list at that point, but ops->rules might be
> still being traversed under rtnl lock:
>
>                                           ops = lookup_rules_ops();
> list_del_rcu(&ops->list);
>                                           list_for_each_entry(ops->rules) {
> fib_rules_cleanup_ops(ops);
> "
>
> Pulling it out of mod_lock is one step, move it under rtnl lock is the second.
>
>> The point he was trying to get at is that you should not make the rtnl_lock
>> a part of fib_rules_unregster.  If someone is calling it in clean-up and
>> requires it they should be taking the rtnl_lock like we did in fib4.  The
>> issue is fib_rules_unregister is also called in the exception path for init
>> and the rtnl_lock isn't necessary in that path.
> This is trivial to solve, you are free to invent __fib_rules_unregister()
> if you want.
>

It isn't necessary though, and for example in the case of 
ip6mr_rules_exit and ipmr_rules_exit it in general looks much cleaner 
since the init doesn't need the lock when allocating the tables, but the 
cleanup does when freeing them.  So for example in ip6mr_rules_exit you 
only have to swap the rtnl_unlock and call to fib_rules_unregister and 
the problem is solved, and from the sound of it you already had a 
similar patch for ipmr to bring it in line with what is in ip6mr so you 
would only need to modify it slightly.

>>> Also, you have a different definition of original issue.
>>
>> Yes.  You reported a sleeping function called from invalid context, and you
>> were fixing it by splitting up the rtnl_lock/unlock section in fib4
>> unnecessarily which opens us up to other possible races, and left the
>> function expensive and bloated as it was performing allocations in a
>> clean-up path.
> Sounds like it is me who called fib_unmerge(), ouch. ;)
>

No, you just left it there.  Like you said, two issues.  The fix for 
what I considered to be the higher priority was getting fouled up in the 
process of trying to address the second one.  That is why I wanted them 
done as two separate fixes and submitted the fix for the first one now 
as I considered it a higher priority since it was something that you had 
been able to reproduce.

>> I've submitted patches for the issue I cared about so once those patches are
>> applied feel free to try and address the rtnl_lock issue separately, however
>> I would prefer it if you didn't split up the locking between the table
>> freeing and the unregister as it should really all be done as one
>> transaction without having to release and reacquire the RTNL lock in the
>> middle of it.
> As long as we agree rtnl lock should be taken, you already take my point
> here ($subject says so).

Yes, I agree lock can be held.  For fib4 it was already holding the RTNL 
lock when it made that call.  You can update the other users of 
fib_rules_unregister so that they call it with the RTNL lock held as well.

> It is just API change to move rtnl_lock up to caller or whatever appropriate.

Right, so like I said for fib4 this is resolved.  That just leaves ipmr, 
ip6mr, fib6, and dn_rules that need to be updated so that they correctly 
handle the RTNL locking in their exit/cleanup paths. Since you already 
have some related patches out for these I will let you take them 
otherwise I might try to go through and clean them up next week.

- Alex
--
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