netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC v2 3/4] virtio_net: move tx vq operation under tx queue lock

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20210413100222-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
Date:   Tue, 13 Apr 2021 10:02:55 -0400
From:   "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:     Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Wei Wang <weiwan@...gle.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 3/4] virtio_net: move tx vq operation under tx
 queue lock

On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 04:54:42PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> 
> 在 2021/4/13 下午1:47, Michael S. Tsirkin 写道:
> > It's unsafe to operate a vq from multiple threads.
> > Unfortunately this is exactly what we do when invoking
> > clean tx poll from rx napi.
> > As a fix move everything that deals with the vq to under tx lock.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@...hat.com>
> > ---
> >   drivers/net/virtio_net.c | 22 +++++++++++++++++++++-
> >   1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
> > index 16d5abed582c..460ccdbb840e 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
> > @@ -1505,6 +1505,8 @@ static int virtnet_poll_tx(struct napi_struct *napi, int budget)
> >   	struct virtnet_info *vi = sq->vq->vdev->priv;
> >   	unsigned int index = vq2txq(sq->vq);
> >   	struct netdev_queue *txq;
> > +	int opaque;
> > +	bool done;
> >   	if (unlikely(is_xdp_raw_buffer_queue(vi, index))) {
> >   		/* We don't need to enable cb for XDP */
> > @@ -1514,10 +1516,28 @@ static int virtnet_poll_tx(struct napi_struct *napi, int budget)
> >   	txq = netdev_get_tx_queue(vi->dev, index);
> >   	__netif_tx_lock(txq, raw_smp_processor_id());
> > +	virtqueue_disable_cb(sq->vq);
> >   	free_old_xmit_skbs(sq, true);
> > +
> > +	opaque = virtqueue_enable_cb_prepare(sq->vq);
> > +
> > +	done = napi_complete_done(napi, 0);
> > +
> > +	if (!done)
> > +		virtqueue_disable_cb(sq->vq);
> > +
> >   	__netif_tx_unlock(txq);
> > -	virtqueue_napi_complete(napi, sq->vq, 0);
> 
> 
> So I wonder why not simply move __netif_tx_unlock() after
> virtqueue_napi_complete()?
> 
> Thanks
> 


Because that calls tx poll which also takes tx lock internally ...


> > +	if (done) {
> > +		if (unlikely(virtqueue_poll(sq->vq, opaque))) {
> > +			if (napi_schedule_prep(napi)) {
> > +				__netif_tx_lock(txq, raw_smp_processor_id());
> > +				virtqueue_disable_cb(sq->vq);
> > +				__netif_tx_unlock(txq);
> > +				__napi_schedule(napi);
> > +			}
> > +		}
> > +	}
> >   	if (sq->vq->num_free >= 2 + MAX_SKB_FRAGS)
> >   		netif_tx_wake_queue(txq);