[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090618102727.GC3782@jolsa.lab.eng.brq.redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 12:27:27 +0200
From: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
To: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: eric.dumazet@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
fbl@...hat.com, nhorman@...hat.com, davem@...hat.com,
oleg@...hat.com
Subject: [RFC] tcp: race in receive part
Hi,
in RHEL4 we can see a race in the tcp layer. We were not able to reproduce
this on the upstream kernel, but since the issue occurs very rarelly
(once per 8 days), we just might not be lucky.
I'm affraid this might be a long email, I'll try to structure it nicely.. :)
RACE DESCRIPTION
================
There's a nice pdf describing the issue (and sollution using locks) on
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=345014
The race fires, when following code paths meet, and the tp->rcv_nxt and
__add_wait_queue updates stay in CPU caches.
CPU1 CPU2
sys_select receive packet
... ...
__add_wait_queue update tp->rcv_nxt
... ...
tp->rcv_nxt check sock_def_readable
... {
schedule ...
if (sk->sk_sleep && waitqueue_active(sk->sk_sleep))
wake_up_interruptible(sk->sk_sleep)
...
}
If there were no cache the code would work ok, since the wait_queue and
rcv_nxt are opposit to each other.
Meaning that once tp->rcv_nxt is updated by CPU2, the CPU1 either already
passed the tp->rcv_nxt check and sleeps, or will get the new value for
tp->rcv_nxt and will return with new data mask.
In both cases the process (CPU1) is being added to the wait queue, so the
waitqueue_active (CPU2) call cannot miss and will wake up CPU1.
The bad case is when the __add_wait_queue changes done by CPU1 stay in its
cache , and so does the tp->rcv_nxt update on CPU2 side. The CPU1 will then
endup calling schedule and sleep forever if there are no more data on the
socket.
Adding smp_mb() calls before sock_def_readable call and after __add_wait_queue
should prevent the above bad scenario.
The upstream patch is attached. It seems to prevent the issue.
CPU BUGS
========
The customer has been able to reproduce this problem only on one CPU model:
Xeon E5345*2. They didn't reproduce on XEON MV, for example.
That CPU model happens to have 2 possible issues, that might cause the issue:
(see errata http://www.intel.com/Assets/PDF/specupdate/315338.pdf)
AJ39 and AJ18. The first one can be workarounded by BIOS upgrade,
the other one has following notes:
Software should ensure at least one of the following is true when
modifying shared data by multiple agents:
• The shared data is aligned
• Proper semaphores or barriers are used in order to
prevent concurrent data accesses.
RFC
===
I'm aware that not having this issue reproduced on upstream lowers the odds
having this checked in. However AFAICS the issue is present. I'd appreciate
any comment/ideas.
thanks,
jirka
Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp.c b/net/ipv4/tcp.c
index 17b89c5..f5d9dbf 100644
--- a/net/ipv4/tcp.c
+++ b/net/ipv4/tcp.c
@@ -340,6 +340,11 @@ unsigned int tcp_poll(struct file *file, struct socket *sock, poll_table *wait)
struct tcp_sock *tp = tcp_sk(sk);
poll_wait(file, sk->sk_sleep, wait);
+
+ /* Get in sync with tcp_data_queue, tcp_urg
+ and tcp_rcv_established function. */
+ smp_mb();
+
if (sk->sk_state == TCP_LISTEN)
return inet_csk_listen_poll(sk);
diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c b/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
index 2bdb0da..0606e5e 100644
--- a/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
+++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
@@ -4362,8 +4362,11 @@ queue_and_out:
if (eaten > 0)
__kfree_skb(skb);
- else if (!sock_flag(sk, SOCK_DEAD))
+ else if (!sock_flag(sk, SOCK_DEAD)) {
+ /* Get in sync with tcp_poll function. */
+ smp_mb();
sk->sk_data_ready(sk, 0);
+ }
return;
}
@@ -4967,8 +4970,11 @@ static void tcp_urg(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb, struct tcphdr *th)
if (skb_copy_bits(skb, ptr, &tmp, 1))
BUG();
tp->urg_data = TCP_URG_VALID | tmp;
- if (!sock_flag(sk, SOCK_DEAD))
+ if (!sock_flag(sk, SOCK_DEAD)) {
+ /* Get in sync with tcp_poll function. */
+ smp_mb();
sk->sk_data_ready(sk, 0);
+ }
}
}
}
@@ -5317,8 +5323,11 @@ no_ack:
#endif
if (eaten)
__kfree_skb(skb);
- else
+ else {
+ /* Get in sync with tcp_poll function. */
+ smp_mb();
sk->sk_data_ready(sk, 0);
+ }
return 0;
}
}
--
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