linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive spinlock (v6)

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]

Message-ID: <49E77BF6.1080206@cosmosbay.com>
Date:	Thu, 16 Apr 2009 20:41:58 +0200
From:	Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
To:	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
CC:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>,
	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, jeff.chua.linux@...il.com,
	paulus@...ba.org, mingo@...e.hu, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
	jengelh@...ozas.de, r000n@...0n.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	benh@...nel.crashing.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive spinlock  (v6)



Paul E. McKenney a écrit :
> 
> But if some other CPU holds the lock, this code would fail to wait for
> that other CPU to release the lock, right?  It also might corrupt the
> rl->count field due to two CPUs accessing it concurrently non-atomically.

If another cpu holds the lock, this cpu will spin on its own lock.

Remember other cpus dont touch rl->count. This is a private field, only touched
by the cpu on its own per_cpu data. There is no possible 'corruption'


So the owner of the per_cpu data does :

/*
 * disable preemption, get rl = &__get_cpu_var(arp_tables_lock);
 * then :
 */
lock_time :
if (++rl->count == 0)
	spin_lock(&rl->lock);

unlock_time:
if (likely(--rl->count == 0))
	spin_unlock(&rl->lock);


while other cpus only do :

spin_lock(&rl->lock);
/* work on data */
spin_unlock(&rl->lock);

So they cannot corrupt 'count' stuff.

> 
> I suggest the following, preferably in a function or macro or something:
> 
> 	cur_cpu = smp_processor_id();
> 	if (likely(rl->owner != cur_cpu) {
> 		spin_lock(&rl->lock);
> 		rl->owner = smp_processor_id();
> 		rl->count = 1;
> 	} else {
> 		rl->count++;
> 	}
> 
> And the inverse for unlock.
> 
> Or am I missing something subtle?

Apparently Linus missed it too, and reacted badly to my mail.
I dont know why we discuss of this stuff on lkml either...

I stop working on this subject and consider drinking dome hard stuf and
watching tv :)

See you

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/