linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] boning: use a read-write lock in bonding_show

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: <CANn89iJnjp8YYYLqtfAGg6PU9iiSrKbMU43wgDkuEVqX8kSCmA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 8 Nov 2023 15:19:03 +0100
From:   Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
To:     Haifeng Xu <haifeng.xu@...pee.com>
Cc:     j.vosburgh@...il.com, andy@...yhouse.net, davem@...emloft.net,
        kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] boning: use a read-write lock in bonding_show_bonds()

On Wed, Nov 8, 2023 at 7:47 AM Haifeng Xu <haifeng.xu@...pee.com> wrote:
>
> call stack:

These stacks should either be removed from the changelog, or moved
_after_ the description
of the problem. These are normal looking call stacks, you are not
fixing a crash or deadlock.

> ......
> PID: 210933  TASK: ffff92424e5ec080  CPU: 13  COMMAND: "kworker/u96:2"
> [ffffa7a8e96bbac0] __schedule at ffffffffb0719898
> [ffffa7a8e96bbb48] schedule at ffffffffb0719e9e
> [ffffa7a8e96bbb68] rwsem_down_write_slowpath at ffffffffafb3167a
> [ffffa7a8e96bbc00] down_write at ffffffffb071bfc1
> [ffffa7a8e96bbc18] kernfs_remove_by_name_ns at ffffffffafe3593e
> [ffffa7a8e96bbc48] sysfs_unmerge_group at ffffffffafe38922
> [ffffa7a8e96bbc68] dpm_sysfs_remove at ffffffffb021c96a
> [ffffa7a8e96bbc80] device_del at ffffffffb0209af8
> [ffffa7a8e96bbcd0] netdev_unregister_kobject at ffffffffb04a6b0e
> [ffffa7a8e96bbcf8] unregister_netdevice_many at ffffffffb046d3d9
> [ffffa7a8e96bbd60] default_device_exit_batch at ffffffffb046d8d1
> [ffffa7a8e96bbdd0] ops_exit_list at ffffffffb045e21d
> [ffffa7a8e96bbe00] cleanup_net at ffffffffb045ea46
> [ffffa7a8e96bbe60] process_one_work at ffffffffafad94bb
> [ffffa7a8e96bbeb0] worker_thread at ffffffffafad96ad
> [ffffa7a8e96bbf10] kthread at ffffffffafae132a
> [ffffa7a8e96bbf50] ret_from_fork at ffffffffafa04b92
>
> 290858 PID: 278176  TASK: ffff925deb39a040  CPU: 32  COMMAND: "node-exporter"
> [ffffa7a8d14dbb80] __schedule at ffffffffb0719898
> [ffffa7a8d14dbc08] schedule at ffffffffb0719e9e
> [ffffa7a8d14dbc28] schedule_preempt_disabled at ffffffffb071a24e
> [ffffa7a8d14dbc38] __mutex_lock at ffffffffb071af28
> [ffffa7a8d14dbcb8] __mutex_lock_slowpath at ffffffffb071b1a3
> [ffffa7a8d14dbcc8] mutex_lock at ffffffffb071b1e2
> [ffffa7a8d14dbce0] rtnl_lock at ffffffffb047f4b5
> [ffffa7a8d14dbcf0] bonding_show_bonds at ffffffffc079b1a1 [bonding]
> [ffffa7a8d14dbd20] class_attr_show at ffffffffb02117ce
> [ffffa7a8d14dbd30] sysfs_kf_seq_show at ffffffffafe37ba1
> [ffffa7a8d14dbd50] kernfs_seq_show at ffffffffafe35c07
> [ffffa7a8d14dbd60] seq_read_iter at ffffffffafd9fce0
> [ffffa7a8d14dbdc0] kernfs_fop_read_iter at ffffffffafe36a10
> [ffffa7a8d14dbe00] new_sync_read at ffffffffafd6de23
> [ffffa7a8d14dbe90] vfs_read at ffffffffafd6e64e
> [ffffa7a8d14dbed0] ksys_read at ffffffffafd70977
> [ffffa7a8d14dbf10] __x64_sys_read at ffffffffafd70a0a
> [ffffa7a8d14dbf20] do_syscall_64 at ffffffffb070bf1c
> [ffffa7a8d14dbf50] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe at ffffffffb080007c
> ......
>
> Problem description:
>
> Thread 210933 holds the rtnl_mutex and tries to acquire the kernfs_rwsem,
> but there are many readers which hold the kernfs_rwsem, so it has to sleep
> for a long time to wait the readers release the lock. Thread 278176 and any
> other threads which call bonding_show_bonds() also need to wait because
> they try to accuire the rtnl_mutex.

acquire

>
> bonding_show_bonds() uses rtnl_mutex to protect the bond_list traversal.
> However, the addition and deletion of bond_list are only performed in
> bond_init()/bond_uninit(), so we can intoduce a separate read-write lock

introduce

> to synchronize bond list mutation.
>
> What's the benefits of this change?
>
> 1) All threads which call bonding_show_bonds() only wait when the
> registration or unregistration of bond device happens.
>
> 2) There are many other users of rtnl_mutex, so bonding_show_bonds()
> won't compete with them.
>
> In a word, this change reduces the lock contention of rtnl_mutex.
>

This looks good to me, but please note:

1) This is net-next material, please resend next week, because
net-next is currently closed during the merge window.

2) Using a spell checker would point few typos (including in the title
"boning" -> "bonding")

Thanks.