[PATCH net-next v2 2/3] net: rps: protect filter locklessly

[Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@gmail.com>]

From: Jason Xing <kernelxing@tencent.com>

As we can see, rflow->filter can be written/read concurrently, so
lockless access is needed.

Signed-off-by: Jason Xing <kernelxing@tencent.com>
---
I'm not very sure if the READ_ONCE in set_rps_cpu() is useful. I
scaned/checked the codes and found no lock can prevent multiple
threads from calling set_rps_cpu() and handling the same flow
simultaneously. The same question still exists in patch [3/3].
---
 net/core/dev.c | 6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/core/dev.c b/net/core/dev.c
index 2003b9a61e40..40a535158e45 100644
--- a/net/core/dev.c
+++ b/net/core/dev.c
@@ -4524,8 +4524,8 @@ set_rps_cpu(struct net_device *dev, struct sk_buff *skb,
 			goto out;
 		old_rflow = rflow;
 		rflow = &flow_table->flows[flow_id];
-		rflow->filter = rc;
-		if (old_rflow->filter == rflow->filter)
+		WRITE_ONCE(rflow->filter, rc);
+		if (old_rflow->filter == READ_ONCE(rflow->filter))
 			old_rflow->filter = RPS_NO_FILTER;
 	out:
 #endif
@@ -4666,7 +4666,7 @@ bool rps_may_expire_flow(struct net_device *dev, u16 rxq_index,
 	if (flow_table && flow_id <= flow_table->mask) {
 		rflow = &flow_table->flows[flow_id];
 		cpu = READ_ONCE(rflow->cpu);
-		if (rflow->filter == filter_id && cpu < nr_cpu_ids &&
+		if (READ_ONCE(rflow->filter) == filter_id && cpu < nr_cpu_ids &&
 		    ((int)(READ_ONCE(per_cpu(softnet_data, cpu).input_queue_head) -
 			   READ_ONCE(rflow->last_qtail)) <
 		     (int)(10 * flow_table->mask)))
-- 
2.37.3