linux-kernel - Re: [Linuxarm] Re: [RFC v2] net: sched: implement TCQ_F_CAN

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: <3ddec762-19c8-6743-43dd-3e44f91fd113@huawei.com>
Date:   Tue, 16 Mar 2021 11:47:25 +0800
From:   Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@...wei.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
CC:     <davem@...emloft.net>, <olteanv@...il.com>, <ast@...nel.org>,
        <daniel@...earbox.net>, <andriin@...com>, <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        <weiwan@...gle.com>, <cong.wang@...edance.com>,
        <ap420073@...il.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linuxarm@...neuler.org>,
        <mkl@...gutronix.de>, <linux-can@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Linuxarm] Re: [RFC v2] net: sched: implement TCQ_F_CAN_BYPASS
 for lockless qdisc

On 2021/3/16 8:35, Yunsheng Lin wrote:
> On 2021/3/16 2:53, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Mar 2021 11:10:18 +0800 Yunsheng Lin wrote:
>>> @@ -606,6 +623,11 @@ static const u8 prio2band[TC_PRIO_MAX + 1] = {
>>>   */
>>>  struct pfifo_fast_priv {
>>>  	struct skb_array q[PFIFO_FAST_BANDS];
>>> +
>>> +	/* protect against data race between enqueue/dequeue and
>>> +	 * qdisc->empty setting
>>> +	 */
>>> +	spinlock_t lock;
>>>  };
>>>  
>>>  static inline struct skb_array *band2list(struct pfifo_fast_priv *priv,
>>> @@ -623,7 +645,10 @@ static int pfifo_fast_enqueue(struct sk_buff *skb, struct Qdisc *qdisc,
>>>  	unsigned int pkt_len = qdisc_pkt_len(skb);
>>>  	int err;
>>>  
>>> -	err = skb_array_produce(q, skb);
>>> +	spin_lock(&priv->lock);
>>> +	err = __ptr_ring_produce(&q->ring, skb);
>>> +	WRITE_ONCE(qdisc->empty, false);
>>> +	spin_unlock(&priv->lock);
>>>  
>>>  	if (unlikely(err)) {
>>>  		if (qdisc_is_percpu_stats(qdisc))
>>> @@ -642,6 +667,7 @@ static struct sk_buff *pfifo_fast_dequeue(struct Qdisc *qdisc)
>>>  	struct sk_buff *skb = NULL;
>>>  	int band;
>>>  
>>> +	spin_lock(&priv->lock);
>>>  	for (band = 0; band < PFIFO_FAST_BANDS && !skb; band++) {
>>>  		struct skb_array *q = band2list(priv, band);
>>>  
>>> @@ -655,6 +681,7 @@ static struct sk_buff *pfifo_fast_dequeue(struct Qdisc *qdisc)
>>>  	} else {
>>>  		WRITE_ONCE(qdisc->empty, true);
>>>  	}
>>> +	spin_unlock(&priv->lock);
>>>  
>>>  	return skb;
>>>  }
>>
>> I thought pfifo was supposed to be "lockless" and this change
>> re-introduces a lock between producer and consumer, no?
> 
> Yes, the lock breaks the "lockless" of the lockless qdisc for now
> I do not how to solve the below data race locklessly:
> 
> 	CPU1:					CPU2:
>       dequeue skb				 .
> 	  .				    	 .	
> 	  .				    enqueue skb
> 	  .					 .
> 	  .			 WRITE_ONCE(qdisc->empty, false);
> 	  .					 .
> 	  .					 .
> WRITE_ONCE(qdisc->empty, true);
> 
> If the above happens, the qdisc->empty is true even if the qdisc has some
> skb, which may cuase out of order or packet stuck problem.
> 
> It seems we may need to update ptr_ring' status(empty or not) while
> enqueuing/dequeuing atomically in the ptr_ring implementation.
> 
> Any better idea?

It seems we can use __ptr_ring_empty() within the qdisc->seqlock protection,
because qdisc->seqlock is clearly served as r->consumer_lock.

> 
>>
>> .
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Linuxarm mailing list -- linuxarm@...neuler.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to linuxarm-leave@...neuler.org
>