linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next] net: sched: remove unnecessay lock protection for skb_bad_txq/gso

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, 16 Mar 2021 11:41:28 -0700
From:   Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To:     Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@...wei.com>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
        Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linuxarm@...neuler.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: sched: remove unnecessay lock protection
 for skb_bad_txq/gso_skb

On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 2:29 AM Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@...wei.com> wrote:
>
> Currently qdisc_lock(q) is taken before enqueuing and dequeuing
> for lockless qdisc's skb_bad_txq/gso_skb queue, qdisc->seqlock is
> also taken, which can provide the same protection as qdisc_lock(q).
>
> This patch removes the unnecessay qdisc_lock(q) protection for
> lockless qdisc' skb_bad_txq/gso_skb queue.
>
> And dev_reset_queue() takes the qdisc->seqlock for lockless qdisc
> besides taking the qdisc_lock(q) when doing the qdisc reset,
> some_qdisc_is_busy() takes both qdisc->seqlock and qdisc_lock(q)
> when checking qdisc status. It is unnecessary to take both lock
> while the fast path only take one lock, so this patch also changes
> it to only take qdisc_lock(q) for locked qdisc, and only take
> qdisc->seqlock for lockless qdisc.
>
> Since qdisc->seqlock is taken for lockless qdisc when calling
> qdisc_is_running() in some_qdisc_is_busy(), use qdisc->running
> to decide if the lockless qdisc is running.

What's the benefit here? Since qdisc->q.lock is also per-qdisc,
so there is no actual contention to take it when we already acquire
q->seqlock, right?

Also, is ->seqlock supposed to be used for protecting skb_bad_txq
etc.? From my understanding, it was introduced merely for replacing
__QDISC_STATE_RUNNING. If you want to extend it, you probably
have to rename it too.

Thanks.