From: Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@cloudflare.com>
To: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [bpf PATCH] bpf: sockmap, remove bucket->lock from sock_{hash|map}_free
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2020 22:39:12 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <878sh33mvj.fsf@cloudflare.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5ed7ed7d315bd_36aa2ab64b3c85bcd9@john-XPS-13-9370.notmuch>
On Wed, Jun 03, 2020 at 08:35 PM CEST, John Fastabend wrote:
> Jakub Sitnicki wrote:
[...]
>> I'm not sure that the check for map->refcnt when sock is unlinking
>> itself from the map will do it. I worry we will then have issues when
>> sockhash is unlinking itself from socks (so the other way around) in
>> sock_hash_free(). We could no longer assume that the sock & psock
>> exists.
>>
>> What comes to mind is to reintroduce the spin-lock protected critical
>> section in sock_hash_free(), but delay the processing of sockets to be
>> unlinked from sockhash. We could grab a ref to sk_psock while holding a
>> spin-lock and unlink it while no longer in atomic critical section.
>
> It seems so. In sock_hash_free we logically need,
>
> for (i = 0; i < htab->buckets_num; i++) {
> hlist_for_each_entryy_safe(...) {
> hlist_del_rcu() <- detached from bucket and no longer reachable
Just to confirm - synchronize_rcu() doesn't prevent
sock_hash_delete_from_link() from getting as far as hlist_del_rcu(),
that is here [0], while on another cpu sock_hash_free() is also
performing hlist_del_rcu().
That is, reintroducing the spin-lock is needed, right? Otherwise we have
two concurrent updaters that are not synchronized.
> synchronize_rcu()
> // now element can not be reached from unhash()
> ... sock_map_unref(elem->sk, elem) ...
> }
> }
>
> We don't actually want to stick a synchronize_rcu() in that loop
> so I agree we need to collect the elements do a sync then remove them.
[...]
>>
>> John, WDYT?
>
> Want to give it a try? Or I can draft something.
I can give it a try, as I clearly need to wrap my head better around
this code path. But I can only see how to do it with a spin-lock back in
place in sock_hash_free(). If you have an idea in mind how to do it
locklessly, please go ahead.
[...]
[0] https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/net/core/sock_map.c#L738
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-06-03 20:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-03-10 16:41 [bpf PATCH] bpf: sockmap, remove bucket->lock from sock_{hash|map}_free John Fastabend
2020-03-11 13:10 ` Daniel Borkmann
2020-06-03 6:13 ` Eric Dumazet
2020-06-03 11:12 ` Jakub Sitnicki
2020-06-03 18:35 ` John Fastabend
2020-06-03 20:39 ` Jakub Sitnicki [this message]
2020-06-03 22:51 ` John Fastabend
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=878sh33mvj.fsf@cloudflare.com \
--to=jakub@cloudflare.com \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).