netdev - Re: [PATCH v3 net] net: sched: add barrier to 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <64b3c3dc-e36d-45b6-4b3a-45e3d26e8315@huawei.com>
Date:   Sat, 28 May 2022 08:51:22 +0800
From:   Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@...wei.com>
To:     Guoju Fang <gjfang@...ux.alibaba.com>
CC:     <davem@...emloft.net>, <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        <eric.dumazet@...il.com>, <guoju.fgj@...baba-inc.com>,
        <kuba@...nel.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        <rgauguey@...rayinc.com>, <sjones@...rayinc.com>,
        <vladimir.oltean@....com>, <vray@...rayinc.com>, <will@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 net] net: sched: add barrier to fix packet stuck
 problem for lockless qdisc

On 2022/5/27 17:11, Guoju Fang wrote:
> In qdisc_run_end(), the spin_unlock() only has store-release semantic,
> which guarantees all earlier memory access are visible before it. But
> the subsequent test_bit() may be reordered ahead of the spin_unlock(),
> and may cause a packet stuck problem.
> 
> The concurrent operations can be described as below,
>          CPU 0                      |          CPU 1
>    qdisc_run_end()                  |     qdisc_run_begin()
>           .                         |           .
>  ----> /* may be reorderd here */   |           .
> |         .                         |           .
> |     spin_unlock()                 |         set_bit()
> |         .                         |         smp_mb__after_atomic()
>  ---- test_bit()                    |         spin_trylock()
>           .                         |          .
> 
> Consider the following sequence of events:
>     CPU 0 reorder test_bit() ahead and see MISSED = 0
>     CPU 1 calls set_bit()
>     CPU 1 calls spin_trylock() and return fail
>     CPU 0 executes spin_unlock()
> 
> At the end of the sequence, CPU 0 calls spin_unlock() and does nothing
> because it see MISSED = 0. The skb on CPU 1 has beed enqueued but no one
> take it, until the next cpu pushing to the qdisc (if ever ...) will
> notice and dequeue it.
> 
> So one explicit barrier is needed between spin_unlock() and test_bit()
> to ensure the correct order.

It might be better to mention why smp_mb() is used instead of smp_rmb()
or smp_wmb():

spin_unlock() and test_bit() ordering is a store-load ordering, which
requires a full memory barrier as smp_mb().

> 
> Fixes: 89837eb4b246 ("net: sched: add barrier to ensure correct ordering for lockless qdisc")

The Fixes tag should be:

Fixes: a90c57f2cedd ("net: sched: fix packet stuck problem for lockless qdisc")

Other than that, it looks good to me:
Reviewed-by: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@...wei.com>

> Signed-off-by: Guoju Fang <gjfang@...ux.alibaba.com>
> ---
> V2 -> V3: Not split the Fixes tag across multiple lines
> V1 -> V2: Rewrite comments
> ---
>  include/net/sch_generic.h | 3 +++
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/include/net/sch_generic.h b/include/net/sch_generic.h
> index 9bab396c1f3b..8a8738642ca0 100644
> --- a/include/net/sch_generic.h
> +++ b/include/net/sch_generic.h
> @@ -229,6 +229,9 @@ static inline void qdisc_run_end(struct Qdisc *qdisc)
>  	if (qdisc->flags & TCQ_F_NOLOCK) {
>  		spin_unlock(&qdisc->seqlock);
>  
> +		/* ensure ordering between spin_unlock() and test_bit() */
> +		smp_mb();
> +
>  		if (unlikely(test_bit(__QDISC_STATE_MISSED,
>  				      &qdisc->state)))
>  			__netif_schedule(qdisc);
>