netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC v2 1/2] can: fix multiple delivery of a single CAN frame for overlapping CAN filters

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]

Message-ID: <551A93D0.6000302@pengutronix.de>
Date:	Tue, 31 Mar 2015 14:32:16 +0200
From:	Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>
To:	Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>, linux-can@...r.kernel.org
CC:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 1/2] can: fix multiple delivery of a single
 CAN frame for overlapping CAN filters

On 03/30/2015 12:41 PM, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
> On 30.03.2015 12:10, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
> 
>>>
>>> +	/* eliminate multiple filter matches for the same skb */
>>> +	if (*this_cpu_ptr(ro->uniq_skb) == oskb &&
>>> +	    ktime_equal(*this_cpu_ptr(ro->uniq_tstamp), oskb->tstamp)) {
>>> +			return;
>>> +	} else {
>>> +		*this_cpu_ptr(ro->uniq_skb) = oskb;
>>> +		*this_cpu_ptr(ro->uniq_tstamp) = oskb->tstamp;
>>> +	}
>>> +
>>
>> What happens if you're preempted somewhere in this code, it's not
>> atomic? I think, if we only have to take care about the skb, an atomic
>> compare exchange would work. But we have two variables....If you use a
>> struct (see previous mail), I think the usage of get_cpu_ptr(),
>> git_cpu_ptr() ensures that we're not preempted.
>>
> 
> Please check out
> 
> https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/rusty/kernel-locking/
> 
> And especially 
> https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/rusty/kernel-locking/x173.html#LOCK-SOFTIRQS-SAME
> 
> When a softirq processes an incoming skb this remains on that selected CPU.

Okay, I was not sure about this. What about preempt_rt?

> The mutithread-test from Andre just lead to the problem that the (former 
> single instance) variables ro->uniq_skb and ro->uniq_tstamp have been used by 
> different CPUs which made the checks unreliable.

> So following the documentation and other examples in kernel source you can
> 
> - use spinlocks in can_receive() in af_can.c (instead of rcu_read_lock())
> - use per-CPU variables to allow the softirq to run in parallel
> 
> Just make the variables atomic (as you suggested) is as bad as introduce 
> spinlocks in can_receive() as you reduce the skb processing to just one 
> thread. So at least percpu is the best for performance but needs to create a 
> vector of variables (percpu).

Ack, lockless atomic-compare-exchange is only possbile for a single
variable.

> Putting a struct into these percpu handling can be done - but does it increase 
> the readability in this case?

It saves ressources, 1 pointer instead of 3 (considering both of your
patches) and only 1 allocation.

Marc

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                  | Marc Kleine-Budde           |
Industrial Linux Solutions        | Phone: +49-231-2826-924     |
Vertretung West/Dortmund          | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686  | http://www.pengutronix.de   |


Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (820 bytes)