linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next] devlink: Execute devlink health recover as a work

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: <20190425143847.417033ab@cakuba.netronome.com>
Date:   Thu, 25 Apr 2019 14:38:47 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
To:     Moshe Shemesh <moshe@...lanox.com>
Cc:     "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] devlink: Execute devlink health recover as a
 work

On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 13:57:03 +0300, Moshe Shemesh wrote:
> Different reporters have different rules in the driver and are being
> created/destroyed during different stages of driver load/unload/running.
> So during execution of a reporter recover the flow can go through
> another reporter's destroy and create. Such flow leads to deadlock
> trying to lock a mutex already held if the flow was triggered by devlink
> recover command.
> To avoid such deadlock, we execute the recover flow from a workqueue.
> Once the recover work is done successfully the reporter health state and
> recover counter are being updated.

Naive question, why not just run the doit unlocked?  Why the async?

> Signed-off-by: Moshe Shemesh <moshe@...lanox.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>

One day we really gotta start documenting the context from which 
things are called and locks called when ops are invoked.. :)

> diff --git a/net/core/devlink.c b/net/core/devlink.c
> index 7b91605..8ee380e 100644
> --- a/net/core/devlink.c
> +++ b/net/core/devlink.c
> @@ -4443,6 +4444,40 @@ struct devlink_health_reporter {
>  	return NULL;
>  }
>  
> +static int
> +devlink_health_reporter_recover(struct devlink_health_reporter *reporter,
> +				void *priv_ctx)
> +{
> +	int err;
> +
> +	if (!reporter->ops->recover)
> +		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> +
> +	err = reporter->ops->recover(reporter, priv_ctx);
> +	if (err)
> +		return err;
> +
> +	reporter->recovery_count++;
> +	reporter->health_state = DEVLINK_HEALTH_REPORTER_STATE_HEALTHY;
> +	reporter->last_recovery_ts = jiffies;

Well, the dump looks at these without taking any locks..

> +	trace_devlink_health_reporter_state_update(reporter->devlink,
> +						   reporter->ops->name,
> +						   reporter->health_state);
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static void
> +devlink_health_reporter_recover_work(struct work_struct *work)
> +{
> +	struct devlink_health_reporter *reporter;
> +
> +	reporter = container_of(work, struct devlink_health_reporter,
> +				recover_work);
> +
> +	devlink_health_reporter_recover(reporter, NULL);
> +}
> +
>  /**
>   *	devlink_health_reporter_create - create devlink health reporter
>   *

> @@ -4483,6 +4518,8 @@ struct devlink_health_reporter *
>  	reporter->devlink = devlink;
>  	reporter->graceful_period = graceful_period;
>  	reporter->auto_recover = auto_recover;
> +	INIT_WORK(&reporter->recover_work,
> +		  devlink_health_reporter_recover_work);
>  	mutex_init(&reporter->dump_lock);
>  	list_add_tail(&reporter->list, &devlink->reporter_list);
>  unlock:
> @@ -4505,6 +4542,7 @@ struct devlink_health_reporter *
>  	mutex_unlock(&reporter->devlink->lock);
>  	if (reporter->dump_fmsg)
>  		devlink_fmsg_free(reporter->dump_fmsg);
> +	cancel_work_sync(&reporter->recover_work);
>  	kfree(reporter);
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(devlink_health_reporter_destroy);
> @@ -4526,26 +4564,6 @@ struct devlink_health_reporter *
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(devlink_health_reporter_state_update);
>  
> -static int
> -devlink_health_reporter_recover(struct devlink_health_reporter *reporter,
> -				void *priv_ctx)
> -{
> -	int err;
> -
> -	if (!reporter->ops->recover)
> -		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> -
> -	err = reporter->ops->recover(reporter, priv_ctx);
> -	if (err)
> -		return err;
> -
> -	reporter->recovery_count++;
> -	reporter->health_state = DEVLINK_HEALTH_REPORTER_STATE_HEALTHY;
> -	reporter->last_recovery_ts = jiffies;
> -
> -	return 0;
> -}
> -
>  static void
>  devlink_health_dump_clear(struct devlink_health_reporter *reporter)
>  {
> @@ -4813,7 +4831,11 @@ static int devlink_nl_cmd_health_reporter_recover_doit(struct sk_buff *skb,
>  	if (!reporter)
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  
> -	return devlink_health_reporter_recover(reporter, NULL);
> +	if (!reporter->ops->recover)
> +		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> +
> +	queue_work(devlink->reporters_wq, &reporter->recover_work);
> +	return 0;
>  }

So the recover user space request will no longer return the status, and
it will not actually wait for the recover to happen.  Leaving user
pondering - did the recover run and fail, or did it nor get run yet...

>  static int devlink_nl_cmd_health_reporter_diagnose_doit(struct sk_buff *skb,
> @@ -5234,6 +5256,11 @@ struct devlink *devlink_alloc(const struct devlink_ops *ops, size_t priv_size)
>  	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&devlink->param_list);
>  	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&devlink->region_list);
>  	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&devlink->reporter_list);
> +	devlink->reporters_wq = create_singlethread_workqueue("devlink_reporters");

Why is it single threaded?

> +	if (!devlink->reporters_wq) {
> +		kfree(devlink);
> +		return NULL;
> +	}
>  	mutex_init(&devlink->lock);
>  	return devlink;
>  }
> @@ -5278,6 +5305,7 @@ void devlink_unregister(struct devlink *devlink)
>  void devlink_free(struct devlink *devlink)
>  {
>  	mutex_destroy(&devlink->lock);
> +	destroy_workqueue(devlink->reporters_wq);
>  	WARN_ON(!list_empty(&devlink->reporter_list));
>  	WARN_ON(!list_empty(&devlink->region_list));
>  	WARN_ON(!list_empty(&devlink->param_list));