Message-ID: <CANq1E4SPORRGb9=aWjrQoyYVqi967BT-3QVBg6hiQKtJUGV3xA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 16 Apr 2015 19:31:22 +0200
From:	David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@...il.com>
To:	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Tom Gundersen <teg@...m.no>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Daniel Mack <daniel@...que.org>,
	Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@...ndz.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] kdbus for 4.1-rc1

Hi

On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 2:36 PM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 11:09:48AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>
>> I've asked for it, but finding people to review code is hard, as you
>> know.  It's only 13k lines long, smaller than a serial port driver (my
>> unit of code review), so it's not all that big.
>>
>> It's smaller than the USB3 host controller driver as well, and very few
>> people ever reviewed that beast :)
>>
>> > For something that's potentially such a core mechanism as a completely
>> > new, massively-adopted IPC, this does send a warning singal.
>>
>> If you know of a way to force others to review code, please let me know.
>
> Have it in a less nasty state, perhaps?  Random question:
>
> al@...e:~/linux/trees/vfs$ git grep -n -w kdbus_node_idr_lock
> ipc/kdbus/node.c:237:static DECLARE_RWSEM(kdbus_node_idr_lock);
> ipc/kdbus/node.c:340:   down_write(&kdbus_node_idr_lock);
> ipc/kdbus/node.c:344:   up_write(&kdbus_node_idr_lock);
> ipc/kdbus/node.c:444:           down_write(&kdbus_node_idr_lock);
> ipc/kdbus/node.c:452:           up_write(&kdbus_node_idr_lock);

As Greg said, this is a leftover from times we actually needed a
lookup here. Nice catch, I have a local patch to convert the whole IDR
into an IDA and drop the lock entirely (like kernfs does right now,
for kernfs_node->ino).

> Do you see anything wrong with that?  Or with things like that:
>                 mutex_lock(&pos->lock);
>                 v_pre = atomic_read(&pos->active);
>                 if (v_pre >= 0)
>                         atomic_add_return(KDBUS_NODE_BIAS, &pos->active);
>                 else if (v_pre == KDBUS_NODE_NEW)
>                         atomic_set(&pos->active, KDBUS_NODE_RELEASE_DIRECT);
>                 mutex_unlock(&pos->lock);
> What are the locking rules for ->active/->waitq/->lock?  Are those the
> outermost thing in the hierarchy?  Or is that dependent on the node location?
> It sure as hell is outside of (at least) ->mmap_sem (by way of
> kdbus_conn_connect() establishing that ->active/->waitq is outside of
> ->conn_rwlock, which due to kdbus_bus_broadcast() nests outside of anything
> taken by kdbus_meta_proc_collect(), which includes ->mmap_sem) and that alone
> brings in a lot...

I'm working on patches to add more comments similar to how we did in
node.c. For now, please see my explanations below:

node->lock is the _innermost_ lock. node->active implements revoke
support for nodes. It follows what kernfs->active does and isn't a
lock in particular. We kinda treat it as rwsem, where down_write() is
the outer-most lock in kdbus and _only_ called without any other lock
held (kdbus_node_deactivate()). Read-side, we never ever block on the
"lock", but only use try-lock. If it fails, the node is dead/revoked.
Therefore, the read-side of 'active' nests almost arbitrarily. We hold
'active'-references almost everywhere, to make sure a node is not
destroyed while we use it. However, we never sleep for an indefinite
time while holding it.
Given that the write-side is the outer-most lock in kdbus, it doesn't
dead-lock against the try-lock readers.

> Document your goddamn locking, would you?  It *IS* new code, and you, as you
> say, had very few people working on it, so you don't have the excuses for
> the mess existing in older parts of the tree.

Locking order (outer-most to inner-most):
 1) domain->lock
 2) names->rwlock
 3) endpoint->lock
 4) bus->conn_rwlock
 5) policy->entries_rwlock
 6) connection->lock
 7) metadata->lock

mmap_sem nests below metadata->lock. With the rcu-protected exe_file
patches by Davidlohr Bueso, we can even drop that dependency. They
have kinda stalled, though.

Then we have a bunch of data structure protection, which can be called
from any context:
 * bus->notify_lock
 * pool->lock
 * match->mdb_rwlock
 * node->lock

Lastly, there're 2 locks which nest around everything and must not be
taken with any lock held:
 * handle->rwlock (taken in ioctl-entry)
 * bus->notify_flush_lock (taken in work-queue)

General object stacking is:
domain -> bus -> endpoint -> policy -> connection -> {metadata,pool,match,node}
The conn_rwlock protection of the conn-list locks on kdbus_bus is the
only lock that doesn't follow this ordering.

Thanks
David
--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists