netdev - Re: [PATCH net] net: fix race between napi kthread mode and busy poll

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]

Message-ID: <20210225171857.798e6c81@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date:   Thu, 25 Feb 2021 17:18:57 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Wei Wang <weiwan@...gle.com>
Cc:     Alexander Duyck <alexanderduyck@...com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>,
        Martin Zaharinov <micron10@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: fix race between napi kthread mode and busy
 poll

On Thu, 25 Feb 2021 16:16:20 -0800 Wei Wang wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 3:00 PM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, 25 Feb 2021 10:29:47 -0800 Wei Wang wrote:  
> > > Hmm... I don't think the above patch would work. Consider a situation that:
> > > 1. At first, the kthread is in sleep mode.
> > > 2. Then someone calls napi_schedule() to schedule work on this napi.
> > > So ____napi_schedule() is called. But at this moment, the kthread is
> > > not yet in RUNNING state. So this function does not set SCHED_THREAD
> > > bit.
> > > 3. Then wake_up_process() is called to wake up the thread.
> > > 4. Then napi_threaded_poll() calls napi_thread_wait().  
> >
> > But how is the task not in running state outside of napi_thread_wait()?
> >
> > My scheduler knowledge is rudimentary, but AFAIU off CPU tasks which
> > were not put to sleep are still in RUNNING state, so unless we set
> > INTERRUPTIBLE the task will be running, even if it's stuck in cond_resched().
>
> I think the thread is only in RUNNING state after wake_up_process() is
> called on the thread in ____napi_schedule(). Before that, it should be
> in INTERRUPTIBLE state. napi_thread_wait() explicitly calls
> set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE) when it finishes 1 round of
> polling.

Are you concerned about it not being in RUNNING state after it's
spawned but before it's first parked?

> > > woken is false
> > > and SCHED_THREAD bit is not set. So the kthread will go to sleep again
> > > (in INTERRUPTIBLE mode) when schedule() is called, and waits to be
> > > woken up by the next napi_schedule().
> > > That will introduce arbitrary delay for the napi->poll() to be called.
> > > Isn't it? Please enlighten me if I did not understand it correctly.  
> >
> > Probably just me not understanding the scheduler :)
> >  
> > > I personally prefer to directly set SCHED_THREAD bit in ____napi_schedule().
> > > Or stick with SCHED_BUSY_POLL solution and replace kthread_run() with
> > > kthread_create().  
> >
> > Well, I'm fine with that too, no point arguing further if I'm not
> > convincing anyone. But we need a fix which fixes the issue completely,
> > not just one of three incarnations.  
> 
> Alexander and Eric,
> Do you guys have preference on which approach to take?
> If we keep the current SCHED_BUSY_POLL patch, I think we need to
> change kthread_run() to kthread_create() to address the warning Martin
> reported.
> Or if we choose to set SCHED_THREADED, we could keep kthread_run().
> But there is 1 extra set_bit() operation.

To be clear extra set_bit() only if thread is running, which if IRQ
coalescing works should be rather rare.