Message-ID: <20081029201759.GF6732@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Wed, 29 Oct 2008 13:17:59 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
Cc:	Corey Minyard <minyard@....org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, shemminger@...tta.com,
	benny+usenet@...rsen.dk, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
	a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, johnpol@....mipt.ru,
	Christian Bell <christian@...i.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] udp: RCU handling for Unicast packets.

On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 09:00:13PM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Paul E. McKenney a écrit :
>> On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 01:28:15PM -0500, Corey Minyard wrote:
>>> Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>>> Corey Minyard a écrit :
>>>>> Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 05:09:53PM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> Corey Minyard a écrit :
>>>>>>>   
>>>>>>>> Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>>>>>>>     
>>>>>>>>> Corey Minyard found a race added in commit 
>>>>>>>>> 271b72c7fa82c2c7a795bc16896149933110672d
>>>>>>>>> (udp: RCU handling for Unicast packets.)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "If the socket is moved from one list to another list in-between 
>>>>>>>>> the time  the hash is calculated and the next field is accessed, 
>>>>>>>>> and the socket  has moved to the end of the new list, the traversal 
>>>>>>>>> will not complete  properly on the list it should have, since the 
>>>>>>>>> socket will be on the end  of the new list and there's not a way to 
>>>>>>>>> tell it's on a new list and  restart the list traversal.  I think 
>>>>>>>>> that this can be solved by  pre-fetching the "next" field (with 
>>>>>>>>> proper barriers) before checking the  hash."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This patch corrects this problem, introducing a new 
>>>>>>>>> sk_for_each_rcu_safenext()
>>>>>>>>> macro.
>>>>>>>>>         
>>>>>>>> You also need the appropriate smp_wmb() in udp_lib_get_port() after 
>>>>>>>> sk_hash is set, I think, so the next field is guaranteed to be 
>>>>>>>> changed after the hash value is changed.
>>>>>>>>       
>>>>>>> Not sure about this one Corey.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If a reader catches previous value of item->sk_hash, two cases are to 
>>>>>>> be taken into :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1) its udp_hashfn(net, sk->sk_hash) is != hash   -> goto begin : 
>>>>>>> Reader will redo its scan
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2) its udp_hashfn(net, sk->sk_hash) is == hash
>>>>>>>  -> next pointer is good enough : it points to next item in same hash 
>>>>>>> chain.
>>>>>>>     No need to rescan the chain at this point.
>>>>>>>     Yes we could miss the fact that a new port was bound and this UDP 
>>>>>>> message could be lost.
>>>>>>>     
>>>>>> 3) its udp_hashfn(net, sk-sk_hash) is == hash, but only because it was
>>>>>> removed, freed, reallocated, and then readded with the same hash 
>>>>>> value,
>>>>>> possibly carrying the reader to a new position in the same list.
>>>>>>   
>>>>> If I understand this, without the smp_wmb(), it is possible that the 
>>>>> next field can be written to main memory before the hash value is 
>>>>> written.  If that happens, the following can occur:
>>>>>
>>>>>  CPU1                    CPU2
>>>>>  next is set to NULL (end of new list)
>>>> Well, if this item is injected to the same chain, next wont be set to 
>>>> NULL.
>>>>
>>>> That would mean previous writers deleted all items from the chain.
>>> I put my comment in the wrong place, I wasn't talking about being 
>>> injected into the same chain.
>>>
>>>> In this case, readers can see NULL, it is not a problem at all.
>>>> List is/was empty.
>>>> An application cannot complain a packet is not
>>>> handled if its bind() syscall is not yet completed :)
>>>>
>>>> If item is injected on another chain, we will detect hash mismatch and 
>>>> redo full scan.
>>> If the item is injected onto the end of another chain, the next field 
>>> will be NULL and you won't detect a hash mismatch.  It's basically the 
>>> same issue as the previous race, though a lot more subtle and unlikely.  
>>> If you get (from the previous socket) an old value of "sk_hash" and (from 
>>> the new socket) a new value of "next" that is NULL, you will terminate 
>>> the loop when you should have restarted it.  I'm pretty sure that can 
>>> occur without the write barrier.
>> One way of dealing with this is to keep a tail pointer.  Then, if the
>> element containing the NULL pointer doesn't match the tail pointer seen
>> at the start of the search, or if the tail pointer has changed,
>> restart the search.  Memory barriers will be needed.  ;-)
>
> Hum... Another way of handling all those cases and avoid memory barriers
> would be to have different "NULL" pointers.
>
> Each hash chain should have a unique "NULL" pointer (in the case of UDP, it
> can be the 128 values : [ (void*)0 .. (void *)127 ]
>
> Then, when performing a lookup, a reader should check the "NULL" pointer
> it get at the end of its lookup has is the "hash" value of its chain.
>
> If not -> restart the loop, aka "goto begin;" :)
>
> We could avoid memory barriers then.
>
> In the two cases Corey mentioned, this trick could let us avoid memory 
> barriers.
> (existing one in sk_add_node_rcu(sk, &hslot->head); should be enough)
>
> What do you think ?

Kinky!!!  ;-)

Then the rcu_dereference() would be supplying the needed memory barriers.

Hmmm...  I guess that the only confusion would be if the element got
removed and then added to the same list.  But then if its pointer was
pseudo-NULL, then that would mean that all subsequent elements had been
removed, and all preceding ones added after the scan started.

Which might well be harmless, but I must defer to you on this one at
the moment.

If you need a larger hash table, another approach would be to set the
pointer's low-order bit, allowing the upper bits to be a full-sized
index -- or even a pointer to the list header.  Just make very sure
to clear the pointer when freeing, or an element on the freelist
could end up looking like a legitimate end of list...  Which again
might well be safe, but why inflict this on oneself?

							Thanx, Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Powered by blists - more mailing lists