netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 net] net: mscc: ocelot: install MAC addresses in .ndo_set_rx

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:   Fri, 4 Dec 2020 20:26:28 +0100
From:   Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com" <UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
        Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@...rochip.com>,
        "Allan W . Nielsen" <allan.nielsen@...rochip.com>,
        Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@....com>,
        Steen Hegelund <steen.hegelund@...rochip.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net] net: mscc: ocelot: install MAC addresses in
 .ndo_set_rx_mode from process context

On 04/12/2020 10:55:16-0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 18:12:51 +0000 Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 10:00:21AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > On Fri,  4 Dec 2020 19:51:25 +0200 Vladimir Oltean wrote:  
> > > > Currently ocelot_set_rx_mode calls ocelot_mact_learn directly, which has
> > > > a very nice ocelot_mact_wait_for_completion at the end. Introduced in
> > > > commit 639c1b2625af ("net: mscc: ocelot: Register poll timeout should be
> > > > wall time not attempts"), this function uses readx_poll_timeout which
> > > > triggers a lot of lockdep warnings and is also dangerous to use from
> > > > atomic context, leading to lockups and panics.
> > > >
> > > > Steen Hegelund added a poll timeout of 100 ms for checking the MAC
> > > > table, a duration which is clearly absurd to poll in atomic context.
> > > > So we need to defer the MAC table access to process context, which we do
> > > > via a dynamically allocated workqueue which contains all there is to
> > > > know about the MAC table operation it has to do.
> > > >
> > > > Fixes: 639c1b2625af ("net: mscc: ocelot: Register poll timeout should be wall time not attempts")
> > > > Signed-off-by: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
> > > > Reviewed-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > Changes in v2:
> > > > - Added Fixes tag (it won't backport that far, but anyway)
> > > > - Using get_device and put_device to avoid racing with unbind  
> > >
> > > Does get_device really protect you from unbind? I thought it only
> > > protects you from .release being called, IOW freeing struct device
> > > memory..  
> > 
> > Possibly.
> > I ran a bind && unbind loop for a while, and I couldn't trigger any
> > concurrency.
> 
> You'd need to switch to a delayed work or add some other sleep for
> testing, maybe?
> 
> > > More usual way of handling this would be allocating your own workqueue
> > > and flushing that wq at the right point.  
> > 
> > Yeah, well I more or less deliberately lose track of the workqueue as
> > soon as ocelot_enqueue_mact_action is over, and that is by design. There
> > is potentially more than one address to offload to the hardware in progress
> > at the same time, and any sort of serialization in .ndo_set_rx_mode (so
> > I could add the workqueue to a list of items to cancel on unbind)
> > would mean
> > (a) more complicated code
> > (b) more busy waiting
> 
> Are you sure you're not confusing workqueue with a work entry?
> 
> You can still put multiple work entries on the queue.
> 
> > > >  drivers/net/ethernet/mscc/ocelot_net.c | 83 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > > >  1 file changed, 80 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)  
> > >
> > > This is a little large for a rc7 fix :S  
> > 
> > Fine, net-next it is then.
> 
> If this really is the fix we want, it's the fix we want, and it should
> go into net. We'll just need to test it very well is all.
> 
> > > What's the expected poll time? maybe it's not that bad to busy wait?
> > > Clearly nobody noticed the issue in 2 years (you mention lockdep so
> > > not a "real" deadlock) which makes me think the wait can't be that long?  
> > 
> > Not too much, but the sleep is there.
> > Also, all 3 of ocelot/felix/seville are memory-mapped devices. But I
> > heard from Alex a while ago that he intends to add support for a switch
> > managed over a slow bus like SPI, and to use the same regmap infrastructure.
> > That would mean that this problem would need to be resolved anyway.
> 
> So it's MMIO but the other end is some firmware running on the device?
> 

No, the SoC can also expose its registers as a pcie endpoint or a SPI
device. In that case, obviously, the on board MIPS CPU is not enabled.
IIRC, you can even access all the registers using MDIO.

> > > Also for a reference - there are drivers out there with busy poll
> > > timeout of seconds :/  
> > 
> > Yeah, not sure if that tells me anything. I prefer avoiding that from
> > atomic context, because our cyclictest numbers are not that great anyway,
> > the last thing I want is to make them worse.
> 
> Fair.

On that topic, we could certainly play with regmap fast_io, I dont
remember if this is enabled by default or even remove regmap locking
completely when using MMIO.

-- 
Alexandre Belloni, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com