Message-ID: <4A42082D.9060402@gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 24 Jun 2009 13:04:13 +0200
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
CC:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	fbl@...hat.com, nhorman@...hat.com, davem@...hat.com,
	oleg@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] tcp: race in receive part

Jiri Olsa a écrit :
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 12:32:10PM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>> Jiri Olsa a écrit :
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> thanks for an answer, and sorry for my late reply,
>>> we needed the cust permission to disclose the debug data.
>>>
>> I see ! Now this is me with litle time as I am traveling right now.
>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 04:06:42PM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>>> Jiri Olsa a écrit :
>>>>> 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.. :)
>>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your mail and detailed analysis
>>>>
>>>>> RACE DESCRIPTION
>>>>> ================
>>>>>
>>>>> There's a nice pdf describing the issue (and sollution using locks) on
>>>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=345014
>>>> I could not reach this url unfortunatly 
>>>>
>>>> --> "You are not authorized to access bug #494404. "
>>> please try it now, the bug should be accessible now
>>>
>> Thanks, this doc is indeed nice :)
>>
>> But adding an write_lock()/write_unlock() in tcp_poll() was overkill
>> It had an sm_mb() implied because of the nesting of locks.
>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>> Is there an easy way to reproduce the problem ?
>>> there's a reproducer attached to the bug
>>>
>>> https://enterprise.redhat.com/issue-tracker/?module=download&fid=201560&key=f6f87caf6ac2dc1eb1173257c8a5ef78
>>>
>>> it is basically the client/server program. 
>>> They're passing messages to each other. When a message is sent,
>>> both of them expect message on the input before sending another message.
>>>
>>> Very rarely the code hits the place when the process which called select
>>> is not woken up by incomming data. Probably because of the memory cache
>>> incoherency. See backtrace in the 
>>>
>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=494404#c1
>>>
>>>
>>>>> 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:
>>>> AJ18 only matters on unaligned accesses, tcp code doesnt do this.
>>>>
>>>>>       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);
>>>> poll_wait() calls add_wait_queue() which contains a 
>>>> spin_lock_irqsave()/spin_unlock_irqrestore() pair
>>>>
>>>> Documentation/memory-barriers.txt states in line 1123 :
>>>>
>>>> 	Memory operations issued after the LOCK will be completed after the LOCK
>>>> 	operation has completed.
>>>>
>>>> and line 1131 states :
>>>>
>>>> 	Memory operations issued before the UNLOCK will be completed before the
>>>> 	UNLOCK operation has completed.
>>>>
>>>> So yes, there is no full smp_mb() in poll_wait()
>>>>
>>>>> +
>>>>> +	/* Get in sync with tcp_data_queue, tcp_urg
>>>>> +	   and tcp_rcv_established function. */
>>>>> +	smp_mb();
>>>> If this barrier is really necessary, I guess it should be done in poll_wait() itself.
>>>>
>>>> Documentation/memory-barriers.txt misses some information about poll_wait()
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> +
>>>>>  	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;
>>>>>
>>>> Oh well... if smp_mb() is needed, I believe it should be done
>>>> right before "if (waitqueue_active(sk->sk_sleep) ... "
>>>>
>>>>  	read_lock(&sk->sk_callback_lock);
>>>> +	smp_mb();
>>>>  	if (sk->sk_sleep && waitqueue_active(sk->sk_sleep))
>>>>  		wake_up_interruptible(sk->sk_sleep)
>>>>
>>>> It would match other parts in kernel (see fs/splice.c, fs/aio.c, ...)
>>>>
>>>> Strange thing is that read_lock() on x86 is a full memory barrier, as it uses
>>>> "lock subl $0x1,(%eax)"
>>>>
>>>> Maybe we could define a smp_mb_after_read_lock()  (a compiler barrier() on x86)
>>>>
>>> First version of the patch was actually in this layer, see
>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=345886
>>>
>>> I was adviced this could be to invasive (it was in waitqueue_active actually), 
>>> so I moved the change to the TCP layer itself... 
>>>
>>> As far as I understand the problem there's need for 2 barriers to be
>>> sure, the memory will have correct data. One in the codepath calling the
>>> select (tcp_poll), and in the other one updating the available data status 
>>> (sock_def_readable), am I missing smth?
>>>
>> Hmm, I am not saying your patch doesnt fix the problem, I am saying it
>> is a partial fix of a general problem. We might have same problem(s) in other
>> parts of network stack. This is a very serious issue.
>>
>> Point 1 :
>>
>> You added an smp_mb() call in tcp_poll(). This one looks fine to solve
>> the problem for tcp sockets. What about other protocols ? Do we have
>> same problem ?
> 
> Looks like most of the protocols using the poll_wait. Also I assume
> that most of them will probably have the same scenario as the one
> described (CPU1 and CPU2 codepaths in the RACE DESCRIPTION).
> 
> So I moved the poll smp_mb() call to the __pollwait function, plz
> check the attached diff. This might be too invasive, so another
> place could be probably polling callbacks themselfs like 
> datagram_poll (used very often by protocols), tcp_poll, udp_poll...
> 
> I'm still looking which way would be more suitable, comments are very
> welcome :)
> 
>> Point 2 :
>>
>> You added several smp_mb() calls in tcp input path. In my first
>> reply, I said it was probably better to add smp_mb() in a single 
>> place, right before "if (waitqueue_active(sk->sk_sleep) ... ",
>> but in all paths (input path & output path).
>>
>> Point 3 :
>>
>> The optimization we could do, defining
>> a smp_mb_after_read_lock() that could be a nop on x86
>>
>> 	read_lock(&sk->sk_callback_lock); // "lock subl $0x1,(%eax)" on x86
>> 	smp_mb_after_read_lock(); /* compiler barrier() on x86 */
>> 	if (sk->sk_sleep && waitqueue_active(sk->sk_sleep))
>>  		wake_up_interruptible(sk->sk_sleep);
>>
>> Am I missing something ?
>>
>> ;)
>>
> 
> not at all :) I'm the one behind..
> 
> Anyway I made modifications based on Point 2) and 3) and the diff is
> attached, please check.
> 
> thanks a lot,
> jirka
> 
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/spinlock.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/spinlock.h
> index b7e5db8..570c0ff 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/spinlock.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/spinlock.h
> @@ -302,4 +302,7 @@ static inline void __raw_write_unlock(raw_rwlock_t *rw)
>  #define _raw_read_relax(lock)	cpu_relax()
>  #define _raw_write_relax(lock)	cpu_relax()
>  
> +/* The read_lock() on x86 is a full memory barrier. */
> +#define smp_mb__after_read_lock() barrier()
> +
>  #endif /* _ASM_X86_SPINLOCK_H */
> diff --git a/fs/select.c b/fs/select.c
> index d870237..f9ebd45 100644
> --- a/fs/select.c
> +++ b/fs/select.c
> @@ -219,6 +219,10 @@ static void __pollwait(struct file *filp, wait_queue_head_t *wait_address,
>  	init_waitqueue_func_entry(&entry->wait, pollwake);
>  	entry->wait.private = pwq;
>  	add_wait_queue(wait_address, &entry->wait);
> +
> +	/* This memory barrier is paired with the smp_mb__after_read_lock
> +	 * in the sock_def_readable. */
> +	smp_mb();
>  }
>  
>  int poll_schedule_timeout(struct poll_wqueues *pwq, int state,
> diff --git a/include/linux/spinlock.h b/include/linux/spinlock.h
> index 252b245..dd28726 100644
> --- a/include/linux/spinlock.h
> +++ b/include/linux/spinlock.h
> @@ -132,6 +132,11 @@ do {								\
>  #endif /*__raw_spin_is_contended*/
>  #endif
>  
> +/* The read_lock does not imply full memory barrier. */
> +#ifndef smp_mb__after_read_lock
> +#define smp_mb__after_read_lock() smp_mb()
> +#endif
> +
>  /**
>   * spin_unlock_wait - wait until the spinlock gets unlocked
>   * @lock: the spinlock in question.
> diff --git a/net/core/sock.c b/net/core/sock.c
> index b0ba569..11e414f 100644
> --- a/net/core/sock.c
> +++ b/net/core/sock.c
> @@ -1732,6 +1732,7 @@ static void sock_def_error_report(struct sock *sk)
>  static void sock_def_readable(struct sock *sk, int len)
>  {
>  	read_lock(&sk->sk_callback_lock);
> +	smp_mb__after_read_lock();
>  	if (sk->sk_sleep && waitqueue_active(sk->sk_sleep))
>  		wake_up_interruptible_sync_poll(sk->sk_sleep, POLLIN |
>  						POLLRDNORM | POLLRDBAND);

I suspect we need to change all places where we do :


read_lock(&sk->sk_callback_lock);
...
if (sk->sk_sleep && waitqueue_active(sk->sk_sleep))

to :

read_lock(&sk->sk_callback_lock);
...
smp_mb__after_read_lock();
if (sk->sk_sleep && waitqueue_active(sk->sk_sleep))

I suggest you add a helper function like

static inline int sk_has_sleeper(struct sock *sk)
{
	/*
	 * some nice comment here why this barrier is needed
	 * (and where opposite one is located)
	 */
	smp_mb__after_read_lock();
	return sk->sk_sleep && waitqueue_active(sk->sk_sleep);
}

and use it in net/atm/common.c : vcc_def_wakeup() & vcc_write_space()
net/dccp/output.c : dccp_write_space()
net/core/stream.c : sk_stream_write_space()
net/core/sock.c : sock_def_wakeup(), sock_def_error_report(),
		sock_def_readable(), sock_def_write_space()
net/iucv/af_iucv.c : iucv_sock_wake_msglim()

and several others as well in net tree... "find|grep" are your friends :)


Thanks
--
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