netdev - Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive lock (v11)

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]

Date:	Tue, 21 Apr 2009 10:55:59 +0200
From:	Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
To:	Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net>
CC:	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, kaber@...sh.net,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, jeff.chua.linux@...il.com,
	mingo@...e.hu, jengelh@...ozas.de, r000n@...0n.net,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, benh@...nel.crashing.org,
	mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca
Subject: Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive lock (v11)

Evgeniy Polyakov a écrit :
> Hi.
> 
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 02:52:30PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan (laijs@...fujitsu.com) wrote:
>>> +void xt_info_rdlock_bh(void)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	struct xt_info_lock *lock;
>>>> +
>>>> +	preempt_disable();
>>>> +	lock = &__get_cpu_var(xt_info_locks);
>>>> +	if (likely(++lock->depth == 0))
>> So what happen when xt_info_rdlock_bh() called recursively here?
>>
>>>> +		spin_lock_bh(&lock->lock);
>>>> +	preempt_enable_no_resched();
>>>> +}
>>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(xt_info_rdlock_bh);
>>>> +
>> ----------
>> Is this OK? (Now I suppose we can enter the read-side critical region
>> in irq context)
>>
>> void xt_info_rdlock_bh(void)
>> {
>> 	unsigned long flags;
>> 	struct xt_info_lock *lock;
>>
>> 	local_irq_save(flags);
>> 	lock = &__get_cpu_var(xt_info_locks);
>> 	if (likely(++lock->depth == 0))
>> 		spin_lock_bh(&lock->lock);
>> 	local_irq_restore(flags);
>> }
> 
> Netfilter as long as other generic network pathes are never accessed
> from interrupt context, but your analysis looks right for the softirq
> case.
> 
> Stephen, should preempt_disable() be replaced with local_bh_disable() to
> prevent softirq to race on the same cpu for the lock's depth field? Or
> can it be made atomic?
> 


Maybe just dont care about calling several time local_bh_disable()
(since we were doing this in previous kernels anyway, we used to call read_lock_bh())

This shortens fastpath, is faster than local_irq_save()/local_irq_restore(),
and looks better.

void xt_info_rdlock_bh(void)
{
	struct xt_info_lock *lock;

	local_bh_disable();
 	lock = &__get_cpu_var(xt_info_locks);
 	if (likely(++lock->depth == 0))
 		spin_lock(&lock->lock);
}

void xt_info_rdunlock_bh(void)
{
	struct xt_info_lock *lock = &__get_cpu_var(xt_info_locks);

	BUG_ON(lock->depth < 0);
	if (likely(--lock->depth < 0))
		 spin_unlock(&lock->lock);
	local_bh_enable();
}



--
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