netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] net: sched: don't release block->lock when dumping chains

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:   Wed, 27 Feb 2019 15:03:20 -0800
From:   Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To:     Vlad Buslov <vladbu@...lanox.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] net: sched: don't release block->lock when
 dumping chains

On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 8:10 AM Vlad Buslov <vladbu@...lanox.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue 26 Feb 2019 at 00:15, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 7:45 AM Vlad Buslov <vladbu@...lanox.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Function tc_dump_chain() obtains and releases block->lock on each iteration
> >> of its inner loop that dumps all chains on block. Outputting chain template
> >> info is fast operation so locking/unlocking mutex multiple times is an
> >> overhead when lock is highly contested. Modify tc_dump_chain() to only
> >> obtain block->lock once and dump all chains without releasing it.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Vlad Buslov <vladbu@...lanox.com>
> >> Suggested-by: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
> >
> > Thanks for the followup!
> >
> > Isn't it similar for __tcf_get_next_proto() in tcf_chain_dump()?
> > And for tc_dump_tfilter()?
>
> Not really. These two dump all tp filters and not just a template, which
> is O(n) on number of filters and can be slow because it calls hw offload
> API for each of them. Our typical use-case involves periodic filter dump
> (to update stats) while multiple concurrent user-space threads are
> updating filters, so it is important for them to be able to execute in
> parallel.

Hmm, but if these are read-only, you probably don't even need a
mutex, you can just use RCU read lock to protect list iteration
and you still can grab the refcnt in the same way.