netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v4 1/5] netdevsim: maintain a list of probed netdevsims

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2024 11:55:24 +0100
From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To: David Wei <dw@...idwei.uk>
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Sabrina Dubroca <sd@...asysnail.net>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 1/5] netdevsim: maintain a list of probed
 netdevsims

Fri, Dec 22, 2023 at 01:45:58AM CET, dw@...idwei.uk wrote:
>On 2023-12-20 00:57, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 02:47:43AM CET, dw@...idwei.uk wrote:
>>> This patch adds a linked list nsim_dev_list of probed netdevsims, added
>>> during nsim_drv_probe() and removed during nsim_drv_remove(). A mutex
>>> nsim_dev_list_lock protects the list.
>> 
>> In the commit message, you should use imperative mood, command
>> the codebase what to do:
>> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v6.6/process/submitting-patches.html#describe-your-changes
>
>Thanks, I didn't know about this. Will edit the commit messages.
>
>> 
>> 
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: David Wei <dw@...idwei.uk>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/net/netdevsim/dev.c       | 17 +++++++++++++++++
>>> drivers/net/netdevsim/netdevsim.h |  1 +
>>> 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/netdevsim/dev.c b/drivers/net/netdevsim/dev.c
>>> index b4d3b9cde8bd..e30a12130e07 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/net/netdevsim/dev.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/net/netdevsim/dev.c
>>> @@ -35,6 +35,9 @@
>>>
>>> #include "netdevsim.h"
>>>
>>> +static LIST_HEAD(nsim_dev_list);
>>> +static DEFINE_MUTEX(nsim_dev_list_lock);
>>> +
>>> static unsigned int
>>> nsim_dev_port_index(enum nsim_dev_port_type type, unsigned int port_index)
>>> {
>>> @@ -1531,6 +1534,7 @@ int nsim_drv_probe(struct nsim_bus_dev *nsim_bus_dev)
>>> 				 nsim_bus_dev->initial_net, &nsim_bus_dev->dev);
>>> 	if (!devlink)
>>> 		return -ENOMEM;
>>> +	mutex_lock(&nsim_dev_list_lock);
>> 
>> I don't follow. You claim you use this mutex to protect the list.
>> a) why don't you use spin-lock?
>
>I'm using a mutex unless I know (or someone else who knows better point
>out) that a spinlock is better. It is simple, there are fewer gotchas,
>and I anticipate actual contention here to be near 0. The
>nsim_bus_dev_list is also protected by a mutex.
>
>Is a spinlock better here and if so why?

spinlock has lower overhead. If you don't need to sleep with the lock,
spinlock is probably better for you.


>
>> b) why don't don't you take the lock just for list manipulation?
>
>Many code paths interact here, touching drivers and netdevs. There is an
>ordering of locks being taken:
>
>1. nsim_bus_dev->dev.mutex
>2. devlink->lock
>3. rtnl_lock
>
>I was careful to avoid deadlocking by acquiring locks in the same order.
>But looking at it again, I can reduce the critical section by acquiring
>nsim_dev_list_lock after devlink->lock, thanks.
>
>> 
>> 
>>> 	devl_lock(devlink);
>>> 	nsim_dev = devlink_priv(devlink);
>>> 	nsim_dev->nsim_bus_dev = nsim_bus_dev;
>>> @@ -1544,6 +1548,7 @@ int nsim_drv_probe(struct nsim_bus_dev *nsim_bus_dev)
>>> 	spin_lock_init(&nsim_dev->fa_cookie_lock);
>>>
>>> 	dev_set_drvdata(&nsim_bus_dev->dev, nsim_dev);
>>> +	list_add(&nsim_dev->list, &nsim_dev_list);
>>>
>>> 	nsim_dev->vfconfigs = kcalloc(nsim_bus_dev->max_vfs,
>>> 				      sizeof(struct nsim_vf_config),
>>> @@ -1607,6 +1612,7 @@ int nsim_drv_probe(struct nsim_bus_dev *nsim_bus_dev)
>>>
>>> 	nsim_dev->esw_mode = DEVLINK_ESWITCH_MODE_LEGACY;
>>> 	devl_unlock(devlink);
>>> +	mutex_unlock(&nsim_dev_list_lock);
>>> 	return 0;
>>>
>>> err_hwstats_exit:
>>> @@ -1668,8 +1674,18 @@ void nsim_drv_remove(struct nsim_bus_dev *nsim_bus_dev)
>>> {
>>> 	struct nsim_dev *nsim_dev = dev_get_drvdata(&nsim_bus_dev->dev);
>>> 	struct devlink *devlink = priv_to_devlink(nsim_dev);
>>> +	struct nsim_dev *pos, *tmp;
>>>
>>> +	mutex_lock(&nsim_dev_list_lock);
>>> 	devl_lock(devlink);
>>> +
>>> +	list_for_each_entry_safe(pos, tmp, &nsim_dev_list, list) {
>>> +		if (pos == nsim_dev) {
>>> +			list_del(&nsim_dev->list);
>>> +			break;
>>> +		}
>>> +	}
>>> +
>>> 	nsim_dev_reload_destroy(nsim_dev);
>>>
>>> 	nsim_bpf_dev_exit(nsim_dev);
>>> @@ -1681,6 +1697,7 @@ void nsim_drv_remove(struct nsim_bus_dev *nsim_bus_dev)
>>> 	kfree(nsim_dev->vfconfigs);
>>> 	kfree(nsim_dev->fa_cookie);
>>> 	devl_unlock(devlink);
>>> +	mutex_unlock(&nsim_dev_list_lock);
>>> 	devlink_free(devlink);
>>> 	dev_set_drvdata(&nsim_bus_dev->dev, NULL);
>>> }
>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/netdevsim/netdevsim.h b/drivers/net/netdevsim/netdevsim.h
>>> index 028c825b86db..babb61d7790b 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/net/netdevsim/netdevsim.h
>>> +++ b/drivers/net/netdevsim/netdevsim.h
>>> @@ -277,6 +277,7 @@ struct nsim_vf_config {
>>>
>>> struct nsim_dev {
>>> 	struct nsim_bus_dev *nsim_bus_dev;
>>> +	struct list_head list;
>>> 	struct nsim_fib_data *fib_data;
>>> 	struct nsim_trap_data *trap_data;
>>> 	struct dentry *ddir;
>>> -- 
>>> 2.39.3
>>>