Message-ID: <a8aac295-6021-f13b-fd26-311462d0a930@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2023 10:16:26 +0900
From: Taehee Yoo <ap420073@...il.com>
To: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com,
 edumazet@...gle.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 syzbot+9bbbacfbf1e04d5221f7@...kaller.appspotmail.com,
 syzbot+1c71587a1a09de7fbde3@...kaller.appspotmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2] net: team: get rid of team->lock in team module



On 2023. 9. 17. 오전 1:47, Jiri Pirko wrote:

Hi Jiri,
Thank you so much for your review!

 > Sat, Sep 16, 2023 at 03:11:15PM CEST, ap420073@...il.com wrote:
 >> The purpose of team->lock is to protect the private data of the team
 >> interface. But RTNL already protects it all well.
 >> The precise purpose of the team->lock is to reduce contention of
 >> RTNL due to GENL operations such as getting the team port list, and
 >> configuration dump.
 >>
 >> team interface has used a dynamic lockdep key to avoid false-positive
 >> lockdep deadlock detection. Virtual interfaces such as team usually
 >> have their own lock for protecting private data.
 >> These interfaces can be nested.
 >> team0
 >>   |
 >> team1
 >>
 >> Each interface's lock is actually different(team0->lock and 
team1->lock).
 >> So,
 >> mutex_lock(&team0->lock);
 >> mutex_lock(&team1->lock);
 >> mutex_unlock(&team1->lock);
 >> mutex_unlock(&team0->lock);
 >> The above case is absolutely safe. But lockdep warns about deadlock.
 >> Because the lockdep understands these two locks are same. This is a
 >> false-positive lockdep warning.
 >>
 >> So, in order to avoid this problem, the team interfaces started to use
 >> dynamic lockdep key. The false-positive problem was fixed, but it
 >> introduced a new problem.
 >>
 >> When the new team virtual interface is created, it registers a dynamic
 >> lockdep key(creates dynamic lockdep key) and uses it. But there is the
 >> limitation of the number of lockdep keys.
 >> So, If so many team interfaces are created, it consumes all lockdep 
keys.
 >> Then, the lockdep stops to work and warns about it.
 >
 > What about fixing the lockdep instead? I bet this is not the only
 > occurence of this problem.

There were many similar patches for fixing lockdep false-positive problem.
But, I didn't consider fixing lockdep because I thought the limitation 
of lockdep key was normal.
So, I still think stopping working due to exceeding lockdep keys is not 
a problem of the lockdep itself.

 >
 >
 >>
 >> So, in order to fix this issue, It just removes team->lock and uses
 >> RTNL instead.
 >>
 >> The previous approach to fix this issue was to use the subclass lockdep
 >> key instead of the dynamic lockdep key. It requires RTNL before 
acquiring
 >> a nested lock because the subclass variable(dev->nested_lock) is
 >> protected by RTNL.
 >> However, the coverage of team->lock is too wide so sometimes it should
 >> use a subclass variable before initialization.
 >> So, it can't work well in the port initialization and unregister logic.
 >>
 >> This approach is just removing the team->lock clearly.
 >> So there is no special locking scenario in the team module.
 >> Also, It may convert RTNL to RCU for the read-most operations such as
 >> GENL dump but not yet adopted.
 >>
 >> Reproducer:
 >>    for i in {0..1000}
 >>    do
 >>            ip link add team$i type team
 >>            ip link add dummy$i master team$i type dummy
 >>            ip link set dummy$i up
 >>            ip link set team$i up
 >>    done
 >>

Thanks a lot!
Taehee Yoo

Powered by blists - more mailing lists