From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752424AbeEPNVj (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 May 2018 09:21:39 -0400 Received: from mail-wr0-f193.google.com ([209.85.128.193]:39571 "EHLO mail-wr0-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751319AbeEPNVh (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 May 2018 09:21:37 -0400 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZrPD2hwHHDURRPGda0wiPaiHjRg8cMZi+rxwzO2i9x9dPQqMqiVgWp0EM/ljuh3NkYuT+Myig== Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 15:21:35 +0200 From: Jiri Pirko To: Vlad Buslov Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, jhs@mojatatu.com, xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com, pablo@netfilter.org, kadlec@blackhole.kfki.hu, fw@strlen.de, ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, edumazet@google.com, keescook@chromium.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, coreteam@netfilter.org, kliteyn@mellanox.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/14] net: sched: retry action check-insert on concurrent modification Message-ID: <20180516132135.GN1972@nanopsycho> References: <1526308035-12484-1-git-send-email-vladbu@mellanox.com> <1526308035-12484-13-git-send-email-vladbu@mellanox.com> <20180516095953.GI1972@nanopsycho> <20180516122600.GM1972@nanopsycho> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Wed, May 16, 2018 at 02:43:58PM CEST, vladbu@mellanox.com wrote: > >On Wed 16 May 2018 at 12:26, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> Wed, May 16, 2018 at 01:55:06PM CEST, vladbu@mellanox.com wrote: >>> >>>On Wed 16 May 2018 at 09:59, Jiri Pirko wrote: >>>> Mon, May 14, 2018 at 04:27:13PM CEST, vladbu@mellanox.com wrote: >>>>>Retry check-insert sequence in action init functions if action with same >>>>>index was inserted concurrently. >>>>> >>>>>Signed-off-by: Vlad Buslov >>>>>--- >>>>> net/sched/act_bpf.c | 8 +++++++- >>>>> net/sched/act_connmark.c | 8 +++++++- >>>>> net/sched/act_csum.c | 8 +++++++- >>>>> net/sched/act_gact.c | 8 +++++++- >>>>> net/sched/act_ife.c | 8 +++++++- >>>>> net/sched/act_ipt.c | 8 +++++++- >>>>> net/sched/act_mirred.c | 8 +++++++- >>>>> net/sched/act_nat.c | 8 +++++++- >>>>> net/sched/act_pedit.c | 8 +++++++- >>>>> net/sched/act_police.c | 9 ++++++++- >>>>> net/sched/act_sample.c | 8 +++++++- >>>>> net/sched/act_simple.c | 9 ++++++++- >>>>> net/sched/act_skbedit.c | 8 +++++++- >>>>> net/sched/act_skbmod.c | 8 +++++++- >>>>> net/sched/act_tunnel_key.c | 9 ++++++++- >>>>> net/sched/act_vlan.c | 9 ++++++++- >>>>> 16 files changed, 116 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>>diff --git a/net/sched/act_bpf.c b/net/sched/act_bpf.c >>>>>index 5554bf7..7e20fdc 100644 >>>>>--- a/net/sched/act_bpf.c >>>>>+++ b/net/sched/act_bpf.c >>>>>@@ -299,10 +299,16 @@ static int tcf_bpf_init(struct net *net, struct nlattr *nla, >>>>> >>>>> parm = nla_data(tb[TCA_ACT_BPF_PARMS]); >>>>> >>>>>+replay: >>>>> if (!tcf_idr_check(tn, parm->index, act, bind)) { >>>>> ret = tcf_idr_create(tn, parm->index, est, act, >>>>> &act_bpf_ops, bind, true); >>>>>- if (ret < 0) >>>>>+ /* Action with specified index was created concurrently. >>>>>+ * Check again. >>>>>+ */ >>>>>+ if (parm->index && ret == -ENOSPC) >>>>>+ goto replay; >>>>>+ else if (ret) >>>> >>>> Hmm, looks like you are doing the same/very similar thing in every act >>>> code. I think it would make sense to introduce a helper function for >>>> this purpose. >>> >>>This code uses goto so it can't be easily refactored into standalone >>>function. Could you specify which part of this code you suggest to >>>extract? >> >> Hmm, looking at the code, I think that what would help is to have a >> helper that would atomically check if index exists and if not, it would >> allocate one. Something like: >> >> >> int tcf_idr_check_alloc(struct tc_action_net *tn, u32 *index, >> struct tc_action **a, int bind) >> { >> struct tcf_idrinfo *idrinfo = tn->idrinfo; >> struct tc_action *p; >> int err; >> >> spin_lock(&idrinfo->lock); >> if (*index) { >> p = idr_find(&idrinfo->action_idr, *index); >> if (p) { >> if (bind) >> p->tcfa_bindcnt++; >> p->tcfa_refcnt++; >> *a = p; >> err = 0; >> } else { >> *a = NULL; >> err = idr_alloc_u32(idr, NULL, index, >> *index, GFP_ATOMIC); >> } >> } else { >> *index = 1; >> *a = NULL; >> err = idr_alloc_u32(idr, NULL, index, UINT_MAX, GFP_ATOMIC); >> } >> spin_unlock(&idrinfo->lock); >> return err; >> } >> >> The act code would just check if "a" is NULL and if so, it would call >> tcf_idr_create() with allocated index as arg. > >What about multiple actions that have arbitrary code between initial >check and idr allocation that is currently inside tcf_idr_create()? Why it would be a problem to have them after the allocation? There is one issue though with my draft. tcf_idr_insert() function which actually assigns a "p" pointer to the idr index is called later on. Until that happens, the idr_find() would return NULL even if the index is actually allocated. We cannot assign "p" in tcf_idr_check_alloc() because it is allocated only later on in tcf_idr_create(). But that is resolvable by the following trick: int tcf_idr_check_alloc(struct tc_action_net *tn, u32 *index, struct tc_action **a, int bind) { struct tcf_idrinfo *idrinfo = tn->idrinfo; struct tc_action *p; int err; again: spin_lock(&idrinfo->lock); if (*index) { p = idr_find(&idrinfo->action_idr, *index); if (IS_ERR(p)) { /* This means that another process allocated * index but did not assign the pointer yet. */ spin_unlock(&idrinfo->lock); goto again; } if (p) { if (bind) p->tcfa_bindcnt++; p->tcfa_refcnt++; *a = p; err = 0; } else { *a = NULL; err = idr_alloc_u32(idr, NULL, index, *index, GFP_ATOMIC); idr_replace(&idrinfo->action_idr, ERR_PTR(-EBUSY), *index); } } else { *index = 1; *a = NULL; err = idr_alloc_u32(idr, NULL, index, UINT_MAX, GFP_ATOMIC); idr_replace(&idrinfo->action_idr, ERR_PTR(-EBUSY), *index); } spin_unlock(&idrinfo->lock); return err; } > >> >> >>> >>>> >>>> [...] >>> >