netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 1/4] net: dev: Remove the preempt_disable() in netif_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]

Message-ID: <87v8xwb1o9.fsf@toke.dk>
Date:   Thu, 03 Feb 2022 13:00:06 +0100
From:   Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...e.dk>
To:     Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc:     bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/4] net: dev: Remove the preempt_disable() in
 netif_rx_internal().

Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com> writes:

> On Wed, Feb 2, 2022 at 4:28 AM Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
> <bigeasy@...utronix.de> wrote:
>>
>> The preempt_disable() and rcu_disable() section was introduced in commit
>>    bbbe211c295ff ("net: rcu lock and preempt disable missing around generic xdp")
>>
>> The backtrace shows that bottom halves were disabled and so the usage of
>> smp_processor_id() would not trigger a warning.
>> The "suspicious RCU usage" warning was triggered because
>> rcu_dereference() was not used in rcu_read_lock() section (only
>> rcu_read_lock_bh()). A rcu_read_lock() is sufficient.
>>
>> Remove the preempt_disable() statement which is not needed.
>
> I am confused by this changelog/analysis of yours.
>
> According to git blame, you are reverting this patch.
>
> commit cece1945bffcf1a823cdfa36669beae118419351
> Author: Changli Gao <xiaosuo@...il.com>
> Date:   Sat Aug 7 20:35:43 2010 -0700
>
>     net: disable preemption before call smp_processor_id()
>
>     Although netif_rx() isn't expected to be called in process context with
>     preemption enabled, it'd better handle this case. And this is why get_cpu()
>     is used in the non-RPS #ifdef branch. If tree RCU is selected,
>     rcu_read_lock() won't disable preemption, so preempt_disable() should be
>     called explictly.
>
>     Signed-off-by: Changli Gao <xiaosuo@...il.com>
>     Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
>
>
> But I am not sure we can.
>
> Here is the code in larger context:
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_RPS
>     if (static_branch_unlikely(&rps_needed)) {
>         struct rps_dev_flow voidflow, *rflow = &voidflow;
>         int cpu;
>
>         preempt_disable();
>         rcu_read_lock();
>
>         cpu = get_rps_cpu(skb->dev, skb, &rflow);
>         if (cpu < 0)
>             cpu = smp_processor_id();
>
>         ret = enqueue_to_backlog(skb, cpu, &rflow->last_qtail);
>
>         rcu_read_unlock();
>         preempt_enable();
>     } else
> #endif
>
> This code needs the preempt_disable().

This is mostly so that the CPU ID stays the same throughout that section
of code, though, right? So wouldn't it work to replace the
preempt_disable() with a migrate_disable()? That should keep _RT happy,
no?

-Toke