netdev - Re: [PATCH wpan-next 06/11] net: mac802154: Hold the transmit queue when relevant

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: <20220517111329.6623d513@xps-13>
Date:   Tue, 17 May 2022 11:13:29 +0200
From:   Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>
To:     Alexander Aring <aahringo@...hat.com>
Cc:     Alexander Aring <alex.aring@...il.com>,
        Stefan Schmidt <stefan@...enfreihafen.org>,
        linux-wpan@...r.kernel.org,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        David Girault <david.girault@...vo.com>,
        Romuald Despres <romuald.despres@...vo.com>,
        Frederic Blain <frederic.blain@...vo.com>,
        Nicolas Schodet <nico@...fr.eu.org>,
        Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH wpan-next 06/11] net: mac802154: Hold the transmit queue
 when relevant

Hi Alex,

aahringo@...hat.com wrote on Thu, 12 May 2022 10:44:35 -0400:

> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 10:33 AM Miquel Raynal
> <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Alexander,
> >
> > aahringo@...hat.com wrote on Wed, 11 May 2022 09:09:40 -0400:
> >  
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 10:52 AM Miquel Raynal
> > > <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com> wrote:  
> > > >
> > > > Hi Alex,
> > > >  
> > > > > > --- a/net/mac802154/tx.c
> > > > > > +++ b/net/mac802154/tx.c
> > > > > > @@ -106,6 +106,21 @@ ieee802154_tx(struct ieee802154_local *local, struct sk_buff *skb)
> > > > > >         return NETDEV_TX_OK;
> > > > > >  }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > +void ieee802154_hold_queue(struct ieee802154_local *local)
> > > > > > +{
> > > > > > +       atomic_inc(&local->phy->hold_txs);
> > > > > > +}
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +void ieee802154_release_queue(struct ieee802154_local *local)
> > > > > > +{
> > > > > > +       atomic_dec(&local->phy->hold_txs);
> > > > > > +}
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +bool ieee802154_queue_is_held(struct ieee802154_local *local)
> > > > > > +{
> > > > > > +       return atomic_read(&local->phy->hold_txs);
> > > > > > +}  
> > > > >
> > > > > I am not getting this, should the release_queue() function not do
> > > > > something like:
> > > > >
> > > > > if (atomic_dec_and_test(hold_txs))
> > > > >       ieee802154_wake_queue(local);
> > > > >
> > > > > I think we don't need the test of "ieee802154_queue_is_held()" here,
> > > > > then we need to replace all stop_queue/wake_queue with hold and
> > > > > release?  
> > > >
> > > > That's actually a good idea. I've implemented it and it looks nice too.
> > > > I'll clean this up and share a new version with:
> > > > - The wake call checked everytime hold_txs gets decremented
> > > > - The removal of the _queue_is_held() helper
> > > > - _wake/stop_queue() turned static
> > > > - _hold/release_queue() used everywhere
> > > >  
> > >
> > > I think there is also a lock necessary for atomic inc/dec hitting zero
> > > and the stop/wake call afterwards...  
> >
> > Mmmh that is true, it can race. I've introduced a mutex (I think it's
> > safe but it can be turned into a spinlock if proven necessary) to
> > secure these increment/decrement+wakeup operations.
> >  
> 
> be aware that you might call these functions from different contexts,
> test your patches with PROVE_LOCKING enabled.

Right, I've added it to my .config, let's see what it tells me.

> > > ,there are also a lot of
> > > optimization techniques to only hold the lock for hitting zero cases
> > > in such areas. However we will see...  
> >
> > I am not aware of technical solutions to avoid the locking in these
> > cases, what do you have in mind? Otherwise I propose just to come up
> > with a working and hopefully solid solution and then we'll see how to
> > optimize.  
> 
> Yes, it's not so important...
> 
> - Alex
> 

Thanks,
Miquèl