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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Thu, 11 Nov 2010 16:23:27 +0100
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Cypher Wu <cypher.w@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Kernel rwlock design, Multicore and IGMP

Le jeudi 11 novembre 2010 à 21:49 +0800, Cypher Wu a écrit :

Hi

CC netdev, since you ask questions about network stuff _and_ rwlock


> I'm using TILEPro and its rwlock in kernel is a liitle different than
> other platforms. It have a priority for write lock that when tried it
> will block the following read lock even if read lock is hold by
> others. Its code can be read in Linux Kernel 2.6.36 in
> arch/tile/lib/spinlock_32.c.

This seems a bug to me.

read_lock() can be nested. We used such a schem in the past in iptables
(it can re-enter itself),
and we used instead a spinlock(), but with many discussions with lkml
and Linus himself if I remember well.


> 
> That different could cause a deadlock in kernel if we join/leave
> Multicast Group simultaneous and frequently on mutlicores. IGMP
> message is sent by
> 
> igmp_ifc_timer_expire() -> igmpv3_send_cr() -> igmpv3_sendpack()
> 
> in timer interrupt, igmpv3_send_cr() will generate the sk_buff for
> IGMP message with mc_list_lock read locked and then call
> igmpv3_sendpack() with it unlocked.
> But if we have so many join/leave messages have to generate and it
> can't be sent in one sk_buff then igmpv3_send_cr() -> add_grec() will
> call igmpv3_sendpack() to send it and reallocate a new buffer. When
> the message is sent:
> 
> __mkroute_output() -> ip_check_mc()
> 
> will read lock mc_list_lock again. If there is another core is try
> write lock mc_list_lock between the two read lock, then deadlock
> ocurred.
> 
> The rwlock on other platforms I've check, say, PowerPC, x86, ARM, is
> just read lock shared and write_lock mutex, so if we've hold read lock
> the write lock will just wait, and if there have a read lock again it
> will success.
> 
> So, What's the criteria of rwlock design in the Linux kernel? Is that
> read lock re-hold of IGMP a design error in Linux kernel, or the read
> lock has to be design like that?
> 

Well, we try to get rid of all rwlocks in performance critical sections.

I would say, if you believe one rwlock can justify the special TILE
behavior you tried to make, then we should instead migrate this rwlock
to a RCU + spinlock schem (so that all arches benefit from this work,
not only TILE)

> There is a other thing, that the timer interrupt will start timer on
> the same in_dev, should that be optimized?
> 

Not sure I understand what you mean.

> BTW: If we have so many cores, say 64, is there other things we have
> to think about spinlock? If there have collisions ocurred, should we
> just read the shared memory again and again, or just a very little
> 'delay' is better? I've seen relax() is called in the implementation
> of spinlock on TILEPro platform.
> --

Is TILE using ticket spinlocks ?


--
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