netdev - Re: [PATCH net v8 1/3] net: sched: fix packet stuck problem for lockless qdisc

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: <CAM_iQpWSvbTzhj5+OFDaiMA+ARthRDb4iNrK37gzVYa3caGC+A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 17 May 2021 17:49:25 -0700
From:   Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To:     Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@...wei.com>
Cc:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Wei Wang <weiwan@...gle.com>,
        "Cong Wang ." <cong.wang@...edance.com>,
        Taehee Yoo <ap420073@...il.com>,
        Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linuxarm@...neuler.org,
        Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>,
        linux-can@...r.kernel.org, Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>, kpsingh@...nel.org,
        bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Jonas Bonn <jonas.bonn@...rounds.com>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Michael Zhivich <mzhivich@...mai.com>,
        Josh Hunt <johunt@...mai.com>, Jike Song <albcamus@...il.com>,
        Kehuan Feng <kehuan.feng@...il.com>,
        Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@...gutronix.de>, atenart@...nel.org,
        Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>,
        Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>, jgross@...e.com,
        JKosina@...e.com, Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>,
        Björn Töpel <bjorn@...nel.org>,
        Alexander Lobakin <alobakin@...me>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v8 1/3] net: sched: fix packet stuck problem for
 lockless qdisc

On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 7:25 PM Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@...wei.com> wrote:
>
> On 2021/5/15 8:17, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Fri, 14 May 2021 16:57:29 -0700 Cong Wang wrote:
> >> On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 4:39 PM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, 14 May 2021 16:36:16 -0700 Cong Wang wrote:
> >>  [...]
> >>>>
> >>>> We have test_and_clear_bit() which is atomic, test_bit()+clear_bit()
> >>>> is not.
> >>>
> >>> It doesn't have to be atomic, right? I asked to split the test because
> >>> test_and_clear is a locked op on x86, test by itself is not.
> >>
> >> It depends on whether you expect the code under the true condition
> >> to run once or multiple times, something like:
> >>
> >> if (test_bit()) {
> >>   clear_bit();
> >>   // this code may run multiple times
> >> }
> >>
> >> With the atomic test_and_clear_bit(), it only runs once:
> >>
> >> if (test_and_clear_bit()) {
> >>   // this code runs once
> >> }
>
> I am not sure if the above really matter when the test and clear
> does not need to be atomic.
>
> In order for the above to happens, the MISSED has to set between
> test and clear, right?

Nope, see the following:

// MISSED bit is already set
CPU0                            CPU1
if (test_bit(MISSED) ( //true
                                if (test_bit(MISSED)) { // also true
        clear_bit(MISSED);
        do_something();
                                        clear_bit(MISSED);
                                        do_something();
                                }
}

Now do_something() is called twice instead of once. This may or may
not be a problem, hence I asked this question.

>
> >>
> >> This is why __netif_schedule() uses test_and_set_bit() instead of
> >> test_bit()+set_bit().
>
> I think test_and_set_bit() is needed in __netif_schedule() mainly
> because STATE_SCHED is also used to indicate if the qdisc is in
> sd->output_queue, so it has to be atomic.

If you replace the "do_something()" above with __netif_reschedule(),
this is exactly my point. An entry can not be inserted twice into a
list, hence it should never be called twice like above.

Thanks.