netdev - Re: [RFC net-next 04/10] devlink: always check if the devlink instance is registered

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: <Y7P1qY8RV2TMOOa+@nanopsycho>
Date:   Tue, 3 Jan 2023 10:30:17 +0100
From:   Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     jacob.e.keller@...el.com, leon@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next 04/10] devlink: always check if the devlink
 instance is registered

Tue, Jan 03, 2023 at 12:16:30AM CET, kuba@...nel.org wrote:
>On Mon, 2 Jan 2023 15:57:24 +0100 Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> Sat, Dec 17, 2022 at 02:19:47AM CET, kuba@...nel.org wrote:
>> >Always check under the instance lock whether the devlink instance
>> >is still / already registered.
>> >
>> >This is a no-op for the most part, as the unregistration path currently
>> >waits for all references. On the init path, however, we may temporarily
>> >open up a race with netdev code, if netdevs are registered before the
>> >devlink instance. This is temporary, the next change fixes it, and this
>> >commit has been split out for the ease of review.
>> >
>> >Note that in case of iterating over sub-objects which have their
>> >own lock (regions and line cards) we assume an implicit dependency
>> >between those objects existing and devlink unregistration.
>
>> >diff --git a/net/devlink/basic.c b/net/devlink/basic.c
>> >index 5f33d74eef83..6b18e70a39fd 100644
>> >--- a/net/devlink/basic.c
>> >+++ b/net/devlink/basic.c
>> >@@ -2130,6 +2130,9 @@ static int devlink_nl_cmd_linecard_get_dumpit(struct sk_buff *msg,
>> > 		int idx = 0;
>> > 
>> > 		mutex_lock(&devlink->linecards_lock);
>> >+		if (!devl_is_alive(devlink))
>> >+			goto next_devlink;  
>> 
>> Thinking about this a bit more, things would be cleaner if reporters and
>> linecards are converted to rely on instance lock as well. I don't see a
>> good reason for a separate lock in both cases, really.
>
>We had discussion before, I'm pretty sure.
>IIRC you said that mlx4's locking prevents us from using the instance
>lock for regions.

Yeah, let me check it out again. For the linecards, that could be done.
Let me take care of these.


>
>> Also, we could introduce devlinks_xa_for_each_registered_get_lock()
>> iterator that would lock the instance as well right away to avoid
>> this devl_is_alive() dance on multiple places when you iterate devlinks.
>
>That's what I started with, but the ability to factor our the
>unlock/put on error paths made the callback approach much cleaner.
>And after using the callback for all the dumps there's only a couple
>places which would use devlinks_xa_for_each_registered_get_lock().

I see. Okay.


>
>> >@@ -12218,7 +12232,8 @@ void devlink_compat_running_version(struct devlink *devlink,
>> > 		return;
>> > 
>> > 	devl_lock(devlink);  
>> 
>> How about to have a helper, something like devl_lock_alive() (or
>> devl_lock_registered() with the naming scheme I suggest in the other
>> thread)? Then you can do:
>> 
>> 	if (!devl_lock_alive(devlink))
>> 		return;
>> 	__devlink_compat_running_version(devlink, buf, len);
>> 	devl_unlock(devlink);
>
>I guess aesthetic preference.
>
>If I had the cycles I'd make devlink_try_get() return a wrapped type
>
>struct devlink_ref {
>	struct devlink *devlink;
>};
>
>which one would have to pass to devl_lock_from_ref() or some such:
>
>struct devlink *devl_lock_from_ref(struct devlink_ref dref)
>{
>	if (!dref.devlink)
>		return NULL;
>	devl_lock(dref.devlink);
>	if (devl_lock_alive(dref.devlink))
>		return dref.devlink;
>	devl_unlock(dref.devlink);
>	return NULL;
>}
>
>But the number of calls to devl_is_alive() is quite small after all
>the cleanup, so I don't think the extra helpers are justified at this
>point. "Normal coders" should not be exposed to any of the lifetime
>details, not when coding the drivers, not when adding typical devlink
>features/subobjects.

Fair point.