[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <vbfr25l2bmt.fsf@mellanox.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2019 18:44:48 +0000
From: Vlad Buslov <vladbu@...lanox.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
CC: Vlad Buslov <vladbu@...lanox.com>, wenxu <wenxu@...oud.cn>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
"pablo@...filter.org" <pablo@...filter.org>,
"netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org" <netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v7 5/6] flow_offload: support get multi-subsystem
block
On Fri 16 Aug 2019 at 20:56, Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 15:04:44 +0000, Vlad Buslov wrote:
>> >> [ 401.511871] RSP: 002b:00007ffca2a9fad8 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000001
>> >> [ 401.511875] RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 0000000000000002 RCX: 00007fad892d30f8
>> >> [ 401.511878] RDX: 0000000000000002 RSI: 000055afeb072a90 RDI: 0000000000000001
>> >> [ 401.511881] RBP: 000055afeb072a90 R08: 00000000ffffffff R09: 000000000000000a
>> >> [ 401.511884] R10: 000055afeb058710 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 0000000000000002
>> >> [ 401.511887] R13: 00007fad893a8780 R14: 0000000000000002 R15: 00007fad893a3740
>> >>
>> >> I don't think it is correct approach to try to call these callbacks with
>> >> rcu protection because:
>> >>
>> >> - Cls API uses sleeping locks that cannot be used in rcu read section
>> >> (hence the included trace).
>> >>
>> >> - It assumes that all implementation of classifier ops reoffload() don't
>> >> sleep.
>> >>
>> >> - And that all driver offload callbacks (both block and classifier
>> >> setup) don't sleep, which is not the case.
>> >>
>> >> I don't see any straightforward way to fix this, besides using some
>> >> other locking mechanism to protect block_ing_cb_list.
>> >>
>> >> Regards,
>> >> Vlad
>> >
>> > Maybe get the mutex flow_indr_block_ing_cb_lock for both lookup, add, delete?
>> >
>> > the callbacks_lists. the add and delete is work only on modules init case. So the
>> >
>> > lookup is also not frequently(ony [un]register) and can protect with the locks.
>>
>> That should do the job. I'll send the patch.
>
> Hi Vlad!
>
> While looking into this, would you mind also add the missing
> flow_block_cb_is_busy() calls in the indirect handlers in the drivers?
>
> LMK if you're too busy, I don't want this to get forgotten :)
Hi Jakub,
Will do!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists