netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 01/12] net: sched: flower: don't check for rtnl on head dereference

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, 26 Feb 2019 14:57:28 +0000
From:   Vlad Buslov <vladbu@...lanox.com>
To:     Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
CC:     Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 01/12] net: sched: flower: don't check for rtnl
 on head dereference


On Mon 25 Feb 2019 at 22:39, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 8:11 AM Vlad Buslov <vladbu@...lanox.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Fri 22 Feb 2019 at 19:32, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > So if it is no longer RCU any more, why do you still use
>> > rcu_dereference_protected()? That is, why not just deref it as a raw
>> > pointer?
>
>
> Any answer for this question?

I decided that since there is neither possibility of concurrent pointer
assignment nor deallocation of object that it points to, most performant
solution would be using rcu_dereference_protected() which is the only
RCU dereference helper that doesn't use READ_ONCE. I now understand that
this is confusing (and most likely doesn't provide any noticeable
performance improvement anyway!) and will change this patch to use
rcu_dereference_raw() as you suggest.

>
>
>> >
>> > And, I don't think I can buy your argument here. The RCU infrastructure
>> > should not be changed even after your patches, the fast path is still
>> > protocted by RCU read lock, while the slow path now is protected by
>> > some smaller-scope locks. What makes cls_flower so unique that
>> > it doesn't even need RCU here? tp->root is not reassigned but it is still
>> > freed via RCU infra, that is in fl_destroy_sleepable().
>> >
>> > Thanks.
>>
>> My cls API patch set introduced reference counting for tcf_proto
>> structure. With that change tp->ops->destroy() (which calls fl_destroy()
>> and fl_destroy_sleepable(), in case of flower classifier) is only called
>> after last reference to tp is released. All slow path users of tp->ops
>> must obtain reference to tp, so concurrent call to fl_destroy() is not
>> possible. Before this change tcf_proto structure didn't have reference
>> counting support and required users to obtain rtnl mutex before calling
>> its ops callbacks. This was verified in flower by using rtnl_dereference
>> to obtain tp->root.
>
> Yes, but fast path doesn't hold a refnct of tp, does it? If not, you still
> rely on RCU for sync with readers. If yes, then probably RCU can be
> gone.
>
> Now you are in a middle of the two, that is taking RCU read lock on
> fast path without a refcnt, meanwhile still uses rcu_dereference on
> slow paths without any lock.
>
> For me, you at least don't use the RCU API correctly here.
>
> Thanks.

Yes, fast path still relies on RCU. What I meant is that slow path (cls
API) now only calls tp ops after obtaining reference to tp, so there is
no need to protect it from concurrent tp->ops->destroy() by means of
rtnl or any other lock. I understand that using
rcu_dereference_protected() is confusing in this case and will refactor
this patch appropriately.