[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <93eddaa5-082c-c3d2-8bc0-f6aa912c9398@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2022 13:24:17 +0800
From: "D. Wythe" <alibuda@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: Wen Gu <guwen@...ux.alibaba.com>, kgraul@...ux.ibm.com,
wenjia@...ux.ibm.com
Cc: kuba@...nel.org, davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 10/10] net/smc: fix application data exception
Hi, Wen Gu
This is indeed same issues, I will fix it in the next version.
Thanks
D. Wythe
On 9/8/22 5:37 PM, Wen Gu wrote:
>
>
> On 2022/8/26 17:51, D. Wythe wrote:
>
>> From: "D. Wythe" <alibuda@...ux.alibaba.com>
>>
>> After we optimize the parallel capability of SMC-R connection
>> establishment, There is a certain probability that following
>> exceptions will occur in the wrk benchmark test:
>>
>> Running 10s test @ http://11.213.45.6:80
>> 8 threads and 64 connections
>> Thread Stats Avg Stdev Max +/- Stdev
>> Latency 3.72ms 13.94ms 245.33ms 94.17%
>> Req/Sec 1.96k 713.67 5.41k 75.16%
>> 155262 requests in 10.10s, 23.10MB read
>> Non-2xx or 3xx responses: 3
>>
>> We will find that the error is HTTP 400 error, which is a serious
>> exception in our test, which means the application data was
>> corrupted.
>>
>> Consider the following scenarios:
>>
>> CPU0 CPU1
>>
>> buf_desc->used = 0;
>> cmpxchg(buf_desc->used, 0, 1)
>> deal_with(buf_desc)
>>
>> memset(buf_desc->cpu_addr,0);
>>
>> This will cause the data received by a victim connection to be cleared,
>> thus triggering an HTTP 400 error in the server.
>>
>> This patch exchange the order between clear used and memset, add
>> barrier to ensure memory consistency.
>>
>> Fixes: 1c5526968e27 ("net/smc: Clear memory when release and reuse buffer")
>> Signed-off-by: D. Wythe <alibuda@...ux.alibaba.com>
>> ---
>> net/smc/smc_core.c | 5 +++--
>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/net/smc/smc_core.c b/net/smc/smc_core.c
>> index 84bf84c..fdad953 100644
>> --- a/net/smc/smc_core.c
>> +++ b/net/smc/smc_core.c
>> @@ -1380,8 +1380,9 @@ static void smcr_buf_unuse(struct smc_buf_desc *buf_desc, bool is_rmb,
>> smc_buf_free(lgr, is_rmb, buf_desc);
>> } else {
>> - buf_desc->used = 0;
>> - memset(buf_desc->cpu_addr, 0, buf_desc->len);
>> + /* memzero_explicit provides potential memory barrier semantics */
>> + memzero_explicit(buf_desc->cpu_addr, buf_desc->len);
>> + WRITE_ONCE(buf_desc->used, 0);
>> }
>> }
>
> It seems that the same issue exists in smc_buf_unuse(), Maybe it also needs to be fixed?
>
>
> static void smc_buf_unuse(struct smc_connection *conn,
> struct smc_link_group *lgr)
> {
> if (conn->sndbuf_desc) {
> if (!lgr->is_smcd && conn->sndbuf_desc->is_vm) {
> smcr_buf_unuse(conn->sndbuf_desc, false, lgr);
> } else {
> conn->sndbuf_desc->used = 0;
> memset(conn->sndbuf_desc->cpu_addr, 0,
> conn->sndbuf_desc->len);
> ^...................
> }
> }
> if (conn->rmb_desc) {
> if (!lgr->is_smcd) {
> smcr_buf_unuse(conn->rmb_desc, true, lgr);
> } else {
> conn->rmb_desc->used = 0;
> memset(conn->rmb_desc->cpu_addr, 0,
> conn->rmb_desc->len +
> sizeof(struct smcd_cdc_msg));
> ^...................
> }
> }
> }
>
> Thanks,
> Wen Gu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists