Message-ID: <Y6HUBWCytyebNnOx@sbohrer-cf-dell>
Date:   Tue, 20 Dec 2022 09:25:57 -0600
From:   Shawn Bohrer <sbohrer@...udflare.com>
To:     Magnus Karlsson <magnus.karlsson@...il.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org, bjorn@...nel.org,
        magnus.karlsson@...el.com, kernel-team@...udflare.com
Subject: Re: Possible race with xsk_flush

On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 10:06:48AM +0100, Magnus Karlsson wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 2:32 AM Shawn Bohrer <sbohrer@...udflare.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 11:05:19AM +0100, Magnus Karlsson wrote:
> > > To summarize, we are expecting this ordering:
> > >
> > > CPU 0 __xsk_rcv_zc()
> > > CPU 0 __xsk_map_flush()
> > > CPU 2 __xsk_rcv_zc()
> > > CPU 2 __xsk_map_flush()
> > >
> > > But we are seeing this order:
> > >
> > > CPU 0 __xsk_rcv_zc()
> > > CPU 2 __xsk_rcv_zc()
> > > CPU 0 __xsk_map_flush()
> > > CPU 2 __xsk_map_flush()
> > >
> > > Here is the veth NAPI poll loop:
> > >
> > > static int veth_poll(struct napi_struct *napi, int budget)
> > > {
> > >     struct veth_rq *rq =
> > >     container_of(napi, struct veth_rq, xdp_napi);
> > >     struct veth_stats stats = {};
> > >     struct veth_xdp_tx_bq bq;
> > >     int done;
> > >
> > >     bq.count = 0;
> > >
> > >     xdp_set_return_frame_no_direct();
> > >     done = veth_xdp_rcv(rq, budget, &bq, &stats);
> > >
> > >     if (done < budget && napi_complete_done(napi, done)) {
> > >         /* Write rx_notify_masked before reading ptr_ring */
> > >        smp_store_mb(rq->rx_notify_masked, false);
> > >        if (unlikely(!__ptr_ring_empty(&rq->xdp_ring))) {
> > >            if (napi_schedule_prep(&rq->xdp_napi)) {
> > >                WRITE_ONCE(rq->rx_notify_masked, true);
> > >                __napi_schedule(&rq->xdp_napi);
> > >             }
> > >         }
> > >     }
> > >
> > >     if (stats.xdp_tx > 0)
> > >         veth_xdp_flush(rq, &bq);
> > >     if (stats.xdp_redirect > 0)
> > >         xdp_do_flush();
> > >     xdp_clear_return_frame_no_direct();
> > >
> > >     return done;
> > > }
> > >
> > > Something I have never seen before is that there is
> > > napi_complete_done() and a __napi_schedule() before xdp_do_flush().
> > > Let us check if this has something to do with it. So two suggestions
> > > to be executed separately:
> > >
> > > * Put a probe at the __napi_schedule() above and check if it gets
> > > triggered before this problem
> > > * Move the "if (stats.xdp_redirect > 0) xdp_do_flush();" to just
> > > before "if (done < budget && napi_complete_done(napi, done)) {"
> > >
> > > This might provide us some hints on what is going on.
> >
> > After staring at this code for way too long I finally made a
> > breakthrough!  I could not understand how this race could occur when
> > napi_poll() calls netpoll_poll_lock().  Here is netpoll_poll_lock():
> >
> > ```
> >   static inline void *netpoll_poll_lock(struct napi_struct *napi)
> >   {
> >     struct net_device *dev = napi->dev;
> >
> >     if (dev && dev->npinfo) {
> >       int owner = smp_processor_id();
> >
> >       while (cmpxchg(&napi->poll_owner, -1, owner) != -1)
> >         cpu_relax();
> >
> >       return napi;
> >     }
> >     return NULL;
> >   }
> > ```
> > If dev or dev->npinfo are NULL then it doesn't acquire a lock at all!
> > Adding some more trace points I see:
> >
> > ```
> >   iperf2-1325    [002] ..s1. 264246.626880: __napi_poll: (__napi_poll+0x0/0x150) n=0xffff91c885bff000 poll_owner=-1 dev=0xffff91c881d4e000 npinfo=0x0
> >   iperf2-1325    [002] d.Z1. 264246.626882: __xsk_rcv_zc_L7: (__xsk_rcv_zc+0x3b/0xc0) addr=0x1503100 len=0x42 xs=0xffff91c8bfe77000 fq=0xffff91c8c1a43f80 dev=0xffff91c881d4e000
> >   iperf2-1325    [002] d.Z1. 264246.626883: __xsk_rcv_zc_L7: (__xsk_rcv_zc+0x42/0xc0) addr=0x1503100 len=0x42 xs=0xffff91c8bfe77000 fq=0xffff91c8c1a43f80 dev=0xffff91c881d4e000
> >   iperf2-1325    [002] d.Z1. 264246.626884: xsk_flush: (__xsk_map_flush+0x32/0xb0) xs=0xffff91c8bfe77000
> > ```
> >
> > Here you can see that poll_owner=-1 meaning the lock was never
> > acquired because npinfo is NULL.  This means that the same veth rx
> > queue can be napi_polled from multiple CPU and nothing stops it from
> > running concurrently.  They all look like this, just most of the time
> > there aren't concurrent napi_polls running for the same queue.  They
> > do however move around CPUs as I explained earlier.
> >
> > I'll note that I've ran with your suggested change of moving
> > xdp_do_flush() before napi_complete_done() all weekend and I have not
> > reproduced the issue.  I don't know if that truly means the issue is
> > fixed by that change or not.  I suspect it does fix the issue because
> > it prevents the napi_struct from being scheduled again before the
> > first poll has completed, and nap_schedule_prep() ensures that only
> > one instance is ever running.
> 
> Thanks Shawn! Good news that the patch seems to fix the problem. To
> me, napi_schedule_prep() makes sure that only one NAPI instance is
> running. Netpoll is an optional feature and I do not even have it
> compiled into my kernel. At least I do not have it defined in my
> .config and I cannot find any netpoll symbols with a readelf command.
> If netpoll is not used, I would suspect that npinfo == NULL. So to me,
> it is still a mystery why this is happening.

Oh I don't think it is a mystery anymore.  The napi_complete_done()
signals that this instance of of the napi_poll is complete.  As you
said nap_schedule_prep() checks to ensure that only one instance of
napi_poll is running at a time, but we just indicated it was done with
napi_complete_done().  This allows this CPU or more importantly any
other CPU to reschedule napi polling for this receive queue, but we
haven't called xdp_do_flush() yet so the flush can race.  I'll note
that the napi_schedule_prep()/__napi_schedule() in veth_poll really
isn't the problem since it will schedule itself back on the same CPU.
The problem is simply that another CPU is free to call
napi_scheulde_prep()/__napi_schedule() in that window after
napi_complete_done() and before xdp_do_flush().  The veth driver can
schedule a napi_poll from the transmit path which is what starts the
poll on a second CPU.

I was simply blinded by that stupid netpoll_poll_lock() but it is
completely unnecessary.
 
> To validate or disprove that there are two instances of the same napi
> running, could you please put a probe in veth_poll() right after
> veth_xdp_rcv() and one at xdp_do_flush() and dump the napi id in both
> cases? And run the original code with the bug :-). It would be good to
> know what exactly happens in the code between these points when this
> bug occurs. Maybe we could do this by enabling the trace buffer and
> dumping it when the bug occurs.

The two instances that race are definitely different napi_polls, the
second one is scheduled from the veth transmit path.

> > If we think this is the correct fix I'll let it run for another day or
> > two and prepare a patch.
> 
> There is one more advantage to this bug fix and that is performance.
> By calling __xdp_map_flush() immediately after the receive function,
> user space can start to work on the packets quicker so performance
> will improve.

Yes definitely.

Thanks,
Shawn Bohrer

Powered by blists - more mailing lists