linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive lock (v11)

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:	Tue, 21 Apr 2009 14:52:30 +0800
From:	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
CC:	Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, kaber@...sh.net,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, jeff.chua.linux@...il.com,
	mingo@...e.hu, jengelh@...ozas.de, r000n@...0n.net,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, benh@...nel.crashing.org,
	mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca
Subject: Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive lock (v11)

Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>> xt_info_rdlock_bh() called recursively here will enter the
>> critical region without &__get_cpu_var(xt_info_locks)->lock.
> 
> NO spin_lock_bh always does a preempt_disable
> 
>   xt_info_rdlock_bh            (depth = -1)
> +1         preempt_disable
>            spin_lock_bh
> +1             preempt_disable
> -1         preempt_enable_no_resched
> ---
> +1
> 
> Second call preempt_count=1   (depth = 0)
>        xt_info_rdlock_bh
> +1         preempt_disable
> -1         preempt_enable_no_resched
> ---
> 

I think I had made you mistook my email.

The preempt_count is correct, but I thought about lock-save:
we must hold &__get_cpu_var(xt_info_locks)->lock
when we enter the read-side critical region.

--------------------
xt_info_rdlock_bh() (depth = -1)
  preempt_disable()
  depth++
  ==========>interrupt here
  ==========>
  ==========>xt_info_rdlock_bh() (depth = 0)
  ==========>  preempt_disable()
  ==========>  depth++
  ==========>  preempt_enable_no_resched()
  ==========>
  ==========>enter the read-side critical region *without* lock.
  ==========>  it may get trashy data.
  ==========>
  ==========>xt_info_rdunlock_bh()
  ==========>
  ==========>interrupt return.
  spin_lock_bh()
  preempt_enable_no_resched()

enter the read-side critical region *with* lock.

xt_info_rdunlock_bh().
----------------------

So I asked:
> +void xt_info_rdlock_bh(void)
> > +{
> > +	struct xt_info_lock *lock;
> > +
> > +	preempt_disable();
> > +	lock = &__get_cpu_var(xt_info_locks);
> > +	if (likely(++lock->depth == 0))

So what happen when xt_info_rdlock_bh() called recursively here?

> > +		spin_lock_bh(&lock->lock);
> > +	preempt_enable_no_resched();
> > +}
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(xt_info_rdlock_bh);
> > +

----------
Is this OK? (Now I suppose we can enter the read-side critical region
in irq context)

void xt_info_rdlock_bh(void)
{
	unsigned long flags;
	struct xt_info_lock *lock;

	local_irq_save(flags);
	lock = &__get_cpu_var(xt_info_locks);
	if (likely(++lock->depth == 0))
		spin_lock_bh(&lock->lock);
	local_irq_restore(flags);
}

Lai

--
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/