linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv7 3/3] vhost_net: a kernel-level virtio server

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: <20091104120414.GE8398@redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 4 Nov 2009 14:04:14 +0200
From:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:	Gregory Haskins <gregory.haskins@...il.com>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, hpa@...or.com,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>, s.hetze@...ux-ag.com,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv7 3/3] vhost_net: a kernel-level virtio server

On Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 10:11:12PM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Michael S. Tsirkin a écrit :
> > 
> > Paul, you acked this previously. Should I add you acked-by line so
> > people calm down?  If you would rather I replace
> > rcu_dereference/rcu_assign_pointer with rmb/wmb, I can do this.
> > Or maybe patch Documentation to explain this RCU usage?
> > 
> 
> So you believe I am over-reacting to this dubious use of RCU ?
> 
> RCU documentation is already very complex, we dont need to add yet another
> subtle use, and makes it less readable.
> 
> It seems you use 'RCU api' in drivers/vhost/net.c as convenient macros :
> 
> #define rcu_dereference(p)     ({ \
>                                 typeof(p) _________p1 = ACCESS_ONCE(p); \
>                                 smp_read_barrier_depends(); \
>                                 (_________p1); \
>                                 })
> 
> #define rcu_assign_pointer(p, v) \
>         ({ \
>                 if (!__builtin_constant_p(v) || \
>                     ((v) != NULL)) \
>                         smp_wmb(); \
>                 (p) = (v); \
>         })
> 
> 
> There are plenty regular uses of smp_wmb() in kernel, not related to Read Copy Update,
> there is nothing wrong to use barriers with appropriate comments.

Well, what I do has classic RCU characteristics: readers do not take
locks, writers take a lock and flush after update. This is why I believe
rcu_dereference and rcu_assign_pointer are more appropriate here than
open-coding barriers.

Before deciding whether it's a good idea to open-code barriers
instead, I would like to hear Paul's opinion.

> 
> (And you already use mb(), wmb(), rmb(), smp_wmb() in your patch)

Yes, virtio guest pretty much forces this, there's no way to share
a lock with the guest.

> BTW there is at least one locking bug in vhost_net_set_features()
> 
> Apparently, mutex_unlock() doesnt trigger a fault if mutex is not locked
> by current thread... even with DEBUG_MUTEXES / DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC
> 
> 
> static void vhost_net_set_features(struct vhost_net *n, u64 features)
> {
>        size_t hdr_size = features & (1 << VHOST_NET_F_VIRTIO_NET_HDR) ?
>                sizeof(struct virtio_net_hdr) : 0;
>        int i;
> <<!>>  mutex_unlock(&n->dev.mutex);
>        n->dev.acked_features = features;
>        smp_wmb();
>        for (i = 0; i < VHOST_NET_VQ_MAX; ++i) {
>                mutex_lock(&n->vqs[i].mutex);
>                n->vqs[i].hdr_size = hdr_size;
>                mutex_unlock(&n->vqs[i].mutex);
>        }
>        mutex_unlock(&n->dev.mutex);
>        vhost_net_flush(n);
> }

Thanks very much for spotting this! Will fix.

-- 
MST
--
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/