linux-kernel - [PATCH 5.13 518/800] net: sched: add barrier to ensure correct ordering for lockless qdisc

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: <20210712061022.342857507@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:   Mon, 12 Jul 2021 08:09:01 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@...wei.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
Subject: [PATCH 5.13 518/800] net: sched: add barrier to ensure correct ordering for lockless qdisc

From: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@...wei.com>

[ Upstream commit 89837eb4b2463c556a123437f242d6c2bc62ce81 ]

The spin_trylock() was assumed to contain the implicit
barrier needed to ensure the correct ordering between
STATE_MISSED setting/clearing and STATE_MISSED checking
in commit a90c57f2cedd ("net: sched: fix packet stuck
problem for lockless qdisc").

But it turns out that spin_trylock() only has load-acquire
semantic, for strongly-ordered system(like x86), the compiler
barrier implicitly contained in spin_trylock() seems enough
to ensure the correct ordering. But for weakly-orderly system
(like arm64), the store-release semantic is needed to ensure
the correct ordering as clear_bit() and test_bit() is store
operation, see queued_spin_lock().

So add the explicit barrier to ensure the correct ordering
for the above case.

Fixes: a90c57f2cedd ("net: sched: fix packet stuck problem for lockless qdisc")
Signed-off-by: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@...wei.com>
Acked-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
---
 include/net/sch_generic.h | 12 ++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)

diff --git a/include/net/sch_generic.h b/include/net/sch_generic.h
index 1e625519ae96..57710303908c 100644
--- a/include/net/sch_generic.h
+++ b/include/net/sch_generic.h
@@ -163,6 +163,12 @@ static inline bool qdisc_run_begin(struct Qdisc *qdisc)
 		if (spin_trylock(&qdisc->seqlock))
 			goto nolock_empty;
 
+		/* Paired with smp_mb__after_atomic() to make sure
+		 * STATE_MISSED checking is synchronized with clearing
+		 * in pfifo_fast_dequeue().
+		 */
+		smp_mb__before_atomic();
+
 		/* If the MISSED flag is set, it means other thread has
 		 * set the MISSED flag before second spin_trylock(), so
 		 * we can return false here to avoid multi cpus doing
@@ -180,6 +186,12 @@ static inline bool qdisc_run_begin(struct Qdisc *qdisc)
 		 */
 		set_bit(__QDISC_STATE_MISSED, &qdisc->state);
 
+		/* spin_trylock() only has load-acquire semantic, so use
+		 * smp_mb__after_atomic() to ensure STATE_MISSED is set
+		 * before doing the second spin_trylock().
+		 */
+		smp_mb__after_atomic();
+
 		/* Retry again in case other CPU may not see the new flag
 		 * after it releases the lock at the end of qdisc_run_end().
 		 */
-- 
2.30.2