linux-kernel - Re: [Linuxarm] Re: [PATCH net-next 2/3] 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 2 Jun 2021 09:28:28 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@...wei.com>
Cc:     Yunsheng Lin <yunshenglin0825@...il.com>, <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>, <jhs@...atatu.com>,
        <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>, <jiri@...nulli.us>,
        <andrii@...nel.org>, <kafai@...com>, <songliubraving@...com>,
        <yhs@...com>, <john.fastabend@...il.com>, <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
        <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, <jonas.bonn@...rounds.com>,
        <pabeni@...hat.com>, <mzhivich@...mai.com>, <johunt@...mai.com>,
        <albcamus@...il.com>, <kehuan.feng@...il.com>,
        <a.fatoum@...gutronix.de>, <atenart@...nel.org>,
        <alexander.duyck@...il.com>, <hdanton@...a.com>, <jgross@...e.com>,
        <JKosina@...e.com>, <mkubecek@...e.cz>, <bjorn@...nel.org>,
        <alobakin@...me>
Subject: Re: [Linuxarm] Re: [PATCH net-next 2/3] net: sched: implement
 TCQ_F_CAN_BYPASS for lockless qdisc

On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 09:21:01 +0800 Yunsheng Lin wrote:
> >> For the MISSING clearing in pfifo_fast_dequeue(), it seems it
> >> looks like the data race described in RFC v3 too?
> >>
> >>       CPU1                 CPU2               CPU3
> >> qdisc_run_begin(q)          .                  .
> >>         .              MISSED is set           .
> >>   MISSED is cleared         .                  .
> >>     q->dequeue()            .                  .
> >>         .              enqueue skb1     check MISSED # true
> >> qdisc_run_end(q)            .                  .
> >>         .                   .         qdisc_run_begin(q) # true
> >>         .            MISSED is set      send skb2 directly  
> > 
> > Not sure what you mean.  
> 
>        CPU1                 CPU2               CPU3
>  qdisc_run_begin(q)          .                  .
>          .              MISSED is set           .
>    MISSED is cleared         .                  .
>    another dequeuing         .                  .
>          .                   .                  .
>          .              enqueue skb1  nolock_qdisc_is_empty() # true
>  qdisc_run_end(q)            .                  .
>          .                   .         qdisc_run_begin(q) # true
>          .                   .          send skb2 directly
>          .               MISSED is set          .
> 
> As qdisc is indeed empty at the point when MISSED is clear and
> another dequeue is retried by CPU1, MISSED setting is not under
> q->seqlock, so it seems retesting MISSED under q->seqlock does not
> seem to make any difference? and it seems like the case that does
> not need handling as we agreed previously?

Right, this case doesn't need the re-check under the lock, but pointed
out that the re-queuing case requires the re-check.