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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200126223006.2b8582c5@carbon>
Date:   Sun, 26 Jan 2020 22:30:06 +0100
From:   Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
To:     John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
Cc:     brouer@...hat.com, bpf@...r.kernel.org, bjorn.topel@...el.com,
        songliubraving@...com, ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net,
        toke@...hat.com, maciej.fijalkowski@...el.com,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 3/3] bpf: xdp, remove no longer required
 rcu_read_{un}lock()

On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 19:58:53 -0800
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com> wrote:

> Now that we depend on rcu_call() and synchronize_rcu() to also wait
> for preempt_disabled region to complete the rcu read critical section
> in __dev_map_flush() is no longer required. Except in a few special
> cases in drivers that need it for other reasons.
> 
> These originally ensured the map reference was safe while a map was
> also being free'd. And additionally that bpf program updates via
> ndo_bpf did not happen while flush updates were in flight. But flush
> by new rules can only be called from preempt-disabled NAPI context.
> The synchronize_rcu from the map free path and the rcu_call from the
> delete path will ensure the reference there is safe. So lets remove
> the rcu_read_lock and rcu_read_unlock pair to avoid any confusion
> around how this is being protected.
> 
> If the rcu_read_lock was required it would mean errors in the above
> logic and the original patch would also be wrong.
> 
> Now that we have done above we put the rcu_read_lock in the driver
> code where it is needed in a driver dependent way. I think this
> helps readability of the code so we know where and why we are
> taking read locks. Most drivers will not need rcu_read_locks here
> and further XDP drivers already have rcu_read_locks in their code
> paths for reading xdp programs on RX side so this makes it symmetric
> where we don't have half of rcu critical sections define in driver
> and the other half in devmap.
> 
> Signed-off-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>

Acked-by: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>

-- 
Best regards,
  Jesper Dangaard Brouer
  MSc.CS, Principal Kernel Engineer at Red Hat
  LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ