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: <6278a4aa-8901-b0e3-342f-5753a4bf32af@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2023 16:58:04 +0200
From: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@...hat.com>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc: Shannon Nelson <shannon.nelson@....com>, Jason Wang
 <jasowang@...hat.com>, xuanzhuo@...ux.alibaba.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
 edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 2/2] virtio-net: add cond_resched() to the
 command waiting loop



On 7/21/23 16:45, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 04:37:00PM +0200, Maxime Coquelin wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 7/20/23 23:02, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 01:26:20PM -0700, Shannon Nelson wrote:
>>>> On 7/20/23 1:38 AM, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Adding cond_resched() to the command waiting loop for a better
>>>>> co-operation with the scheduler. This allows to give CPU a breath to
>>>>> run other task(workqueue) instead of busy looping when preemption is
>>>>> not allowed on a device whose CVQ might be slow.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
>>>>
>>>> This still leaves hung processes, but at least it doesn't pin the CPU any
>>>> more.  Thanks.
>>>> Reviewed-by: Shannon Nelson <shannon.nelson@....com>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'd like to see a full solution
>>> 1- block until interrupt
>>
>> Would it make sense to also have a timeout?
>> And when timeout expires, set FAILED bit in device status?
> 
> virtio spec does not set any limits on the timing of vq
> processing.

Indeed, but I thought the driver could decide it is too long for it.

The issue is we keep waiting with rtnl locked, it can quickly make the
system unusable.

>>> 2- still handle surprise removal correctly by waking in that case
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>     drivers/net/virtio_net.c | 4 +++-
>>>>>     1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
>>>>> index 9f3b1d6ac33d..e7533f29b219 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
>>>>> @@ -2314,8 +2314,10 @@ static bool virtnet_send_command(struct virtnet_info *vi, u8 class, u8 cmd,
>>>>>             * into the hypervisor, so the request should be handled immediately.
>>>>>             */
>>>>>            while (!virtqueue_get_buf(vi->cvq, &tmp) &&
>>>>> -              !virtqueue_is_broken(vi->cvq))
>>>>> +              !virtqueue_is_broken(vi->cvq)) {
>>>>> +               cond_resched();
>>>>>                    cpu_relax();
>>>>> +       }
>>>>>
>>>>>            return vi->ctrl->status == VIRTIO_NET_OK;
>>>>>     }
>>>>> --
>>>>> 2.39.3
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Virtualization mailing list
>>>>> Virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org
>>>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
>>>
> 


Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ