| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <562809EA.2070601@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 14:55:54 -0700
From: Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
To: Lan Tianyu <tianyu.lan@...el.com>, bhelgaas@...gle.com,
carolyn.wyborny@...el.com, donald.c.skidmore@...el.com,
eddie.dong@...el.com, nrupal.jani@...el.com,
yang.z.zhang@...el.com, agraf@...e.de, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
pbonzini@...hat.com, qemu-devel@...gnu.org,
emil.s.tantilov@...el.com, intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org,
jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com, jesse.brandeburg@...el.com,
john.ronciak@...el.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, matthew.vick@...el.com,
mitch.a.williams@...el.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
shannon.nelson@...el.com
Subject: Re: [RFC Patch 10/12] IXGBEVF: Add lock to protect tx/rx ring
operation
On 10/21/2015 09:37 AM, Lan Tianyu wrote:
> Ring shifting during restoring VF function maybe race with original
> ring operation(transmit/receive package). This patch is to add tx/rx
> lock to protect ring related data.
>
> Signed-off-by: Lan Tianyu <tianyu.lan@...el.com>
> ---
> drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbevf/ixgbevf.h | 2 ++
> drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbevf/ixgbevf_main.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++---
> 2 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbevf/ixgbevf.h b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbevf/ixgbevf.h
> index 6eab402e..3a748c8 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbevf/ixgbevf.h
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbevf/ixgbevf.h
> @@ -448,6 +448,8 @@ struct ixgbevf_adapter {
>
> spinlock_t mbx_lock;
> unsigned long last_reset;
> + spinlock_t mg_rx_lock;
> + spinlock_t mg_tx_lock;
> };
>
Really, a shared lock for all of the Rx or Tx rings? This is going to
kill any chance at performance. Especially since just recently the VFs
got support for RSS.
To top it off it also means we cannot clean Tx while adding new buffers
which will kill Tx performance.
The other concern I have is what is supposed to prevent the hardware
from accessing the rings while you are reading? I suspect nothing so I
don't see how this helps anything.
I would honestly say you are better off just giving up on all of the
data stored in the descriptor rings rather than trying to restore them.
Yes you are going to lose a few packets but you don't have the risk
for races that this code introduces.
> enum ixbgevf_state_t {
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbevf/ixgbevf_main.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbevf/ixgbevf_main.c
> index 15ec361..04b6ce7 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbevf/ixgbevf_main.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbevf/ixgbevf_main.c
> @@ -227,8 +227,10 @@ static u64 ixgbevf_get_tx_completed(struct ixgbevf_ring *ring)
>
> int ixgbevf_tx_ring_shift(struct ixgbevf_ring *r, u32 head)
> {
> + struct ixgbevf_adapter *adapter = netdev_priv(r->netdev);
> struct ixgbevf_tx_buffer *tx_buffer = NULL;
> static union ixgbevf_desc *tx_desc = NULL;
> + unsigned long flags;
>
> tx_buffer = vmalloc(sizeof(struct ixgbevf_tx_buffer) * (r->count));
> if (!tx_buffer)
> @@ -238,6 +240,7 @@ int ixgbevf_tx_ring_shift(struct ixgbevf_ring *r, u32 head)
> if (!tx_desc)
> return -ENOMEM;
>
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&adapter->mg_tx_lock, flags);
> memcpy(tx_desc, r->desc, sizeof(union ixgbevf_desc) * r->count);
> memcpy(r->desc, &tx_desc[head], sizeof(union ixgbevf_desc) * (r->count - head));
> memcpy(&r->desc[r->count - head], tx_desc, sizeof(union ixgbevf_desc) * head);
> @@ -256,6 +259,8 @@ int ixgbevf_tx_ring_shift(struct ixgbevf_ring *r, u32 head)
> else
> r->next_to_use += (r->count - head);
>
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&adapter->mg_tx_lock, flags);
> +
> vfree(tx_buffer);
> vfree(tx_desc);
> return 0;
> @@ -263,8 +268,10 @@ int ixgbevf_tx_ring_shift(struct ixgbevf_ring *r, u32 head)
>
> int ixgbevf_rx_ring_shift(struct ixgbevf_ring *r, u32 head)
> {
> + struct ixgbevf_adapter *adapter = netdev_priv(r->netdev);
> struct ixgbevf_rx_buffer *rx_buffer = NULL;
> static union ixgbevf_desc *rx_desc = NULL;
> + unsigned long flags;
>
> rx_buffer = vmalloc(sizeof(struct ixgbevf_rx_buffer) * (r->count));
> if (!rx_buffer)
> @@ -274,6 +281,7 @@ int ixgbevf_rx_ring_shift(struct ixgbevf_ring *r, u32 head)
> if (!rx_desc)
> return -ENOMEM;
>
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&adapter->mg_rx_lock, flags);
> memcpy(rx_desc, r->desc, sizeof(union ixgbevf_desc) * (r->count));
> memcpy(r->desc, &rx_desc[head], sizeof(union ixgbevf_desc) * (r->count - head));
> memcpy(&r->desc[r->count - head], rx_desc, sizeof(union ixgbevf_desc) * head);
> @@ -291,6 +299,7 @@ int ixgbevf_rx_ring_shift(struct ixgbevf_ring *r, u32 head)
> r->next_to_use -= head;
> else
> r->next_to_use += (r->count - head);
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&adapter->mg_rx_lock, flags);
>
> vfree(rx_buffer);
> vfree(rx_desc);
> @@ -377,6 +386,8 @@ static bool ixgbevf_clean_tx_irq(struct ixgbevf_q_vector *q_vector,
> if (test_bit(__IXGBEVF_DOWN, &adapter->state))
> return true;
>
> + spin_lock(&adapter->mg_tx_lock);
> + i = tx_ring->next_to_clean;
> tx_buffer = &tx_ring->tx_buffer_info[i];
> tx_desc = IXGBEVF_TX_DESC(tx_ring, i);
> i -= tx_ring->count;
> @@ -471,6 +482,8 @@ static bool ixgbevf_clean_tx_irq(struct ixgbevf_q_vector *q_vector,
> q_vector->tx.total_bytes += total_bytes;
> q_vector->tx.total_packets += total_packets;
>
> + spin_unlock(&adapter->mg_tx_lock);
> +
> if (check_for_tx_hang(tx_ring) && ixgbevf_check_tx_hang(tx_ring)) {
> struct ixgbe_hw *hw = &adapter->hw;
> union ixgbe_adv_tx_desc *eop_desc;
> @@ -999,10 +1012,12 @@ static int ixgbevf_clean_rx_irq(struct ixgbevf_q_vector *q_vector,
> struct ixgbevf_ring *rx_ring,
> int budget)
> {
> + struct ixgbevf_adapter *adapter = netdev_priv(rx_ring->netdev);
> unsigned int total_rx_bytes = 0, total_rx_packets = 0;
> u16 cleaned_count = ixgbevf_desc_unused(rx_ring);
> struct sk_buff *skb = rx_ring->skb;
>
> + spin_lock(&adapter->mg_rx_lock);
> while (likely(total_rx_packets < budget)) {
> union ixgbe_adv_rx_desc *rx_desc;
>
> @@ -1078,6 +1093,7 @@ static int ixgbevf_clean_rx_irq(struct ixgbevf_q_vector *q_vector,
> q_vector->rx.total_packets += total_rx_packets;
> q_vector->rx.total_bytes += total_rx_bytes;
>
> + spin_unlock(&adapter->mg_rx_lock);
> return total_rx_packets;
> }
>
> @@ -3572,14 +3588,17 @@ static void ixgbevf_tx_map(struct ixgbevf_ring *tx_ring,
> struct ixgbevf_tx_buffer *tx_buffer;
> union ixgbe_adv_tx_desc *tx_desc;
> struct skb_frag_struct *frag = &skb_shinfo(skb)->frags[0];
> + struct ixgbevf_adapter *adapter = netdev_priv(tx_ring->netdev);
> unsigned int data_len = skb->data_len;
> unsigned int size = skb_headlen(skb);
> unsigned int paylen = skb->len - hdr_len;
> + unsigned long flags;
> u32 tx_flags = first->tx_flags;
> __le32 cmd_type;
> - u16 i = tx_ring->next_to_use;
> - u16 start;
> + u16 i, start;
>
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&adapter->mg_tx_lock, flags);
> + i = tx_ring->next_to_use;
> tx_desc = IXGBEVF_TX_DESC(tx_ring, i);
>
> ixgbevf_tx_olinfo_status(tx_desc, tx_flags, paylen);
> @@ -3673,7 +3692,7 @@ static void ixgbevf_tx_map(struct ixgbevf_ring *tx_ring,
>
> /* notify HW of packet */
> ixgbevf_write_tail(tx_ring, i);
> -
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&adapter->mg_tx_lock, flags);
> return;
> dma_error:
> dev_err(tx_ring->dev, "TX DMA map failed\n");
> @@ -3690,6 +3709,7 @@ dma_error:
> }
>
> tx_ring->next_to_use = i;
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&adapter->mg_tx_lock, flags);
> }
>
> static int __ixgbevf_maybe_stop_tx(struct ixgbevf_ring *tx_ring, int size)
> @@ -4188,6 +4208,8 @@ static int ixgbevf_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev, const struct pci_device_id *ent)
> break;
> }
>
> + spin_lock_init(&adapter->mg_tx_lock);
> + spin_lock_init(&adapter->mg_rx_lock);
> return 0;
>
> err_register:
>
--
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