From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Toshiaki Makita <makita.toshiaki@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 3/4] rocker: do not make neighbour entry changes
 when preparing transactions
Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 17:36:06 +0900
Message-ID: <555C4776.70508@lab.ntt.co.jp>
References: <1432100902-10187-1-git-send-email-simon.horman@netronome.com> <1432100902-10187-4-git-send-email-simon.horman@netronome.com> <555C267B.9070807@lab.ntt.co.jp> <20150520074810.GA21934@vergenet.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Scott Feldman <sfeldma@gmail.com>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>,
	David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>, netdev@vger.kernel.org
To: Simon Horman <simon.horman@netronome.com>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from tama500.ecl.ntt.co.jp ([129.60.39.148]:52223 "EHLO
	tama500.ecl.ntt.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751502AbbETIgi (ORCPT
	<rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Wed, 20 May 2015 04:36:38 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20150520074810.GA21934@vergenet.net>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On 2015/05/20 16:48, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 03:15:23PM +0900, Toshiaki Makita wrote:
>> On 2015/05/20 14:48, Simon Horman wrote:
...
>>>  static void _rocker_neigh_add(struct rocker *rocker,
>>> +			      enum switchdev_trans trans,
>>>  			      struct rocker_neigh_tbl_entry *entry)
>>>  {
>>> +	if (trans == SWITCHDEV_TRANS_PREPARE)
>>> +		return;
>>>  	entry->index = rocker->neigh_tbl_next_index++;
>>
>> Isn't index needed here? It looks to be used in later function call and
>> logging.
> 
> Thanks, that does not follow the usual model of setting values
> during the PREPARE (and all other) transaction phase(s).
> 
>> How about setting index like this?
>>
>> 	entry->index = rocker->neigh_tbl_next_index;
>> 	if (trans == PREPARE)
>> 		return;
>> 	rocker->neigh_tbl_next_index++;
>> 	...
> 
> I am concerned that _rocker_neigh_add() may be called by some other
> caller while a transaction is in process and thus entry->index will
> be inconsistent across callers.
> 
> Perhaps we can convince ourselves that all the bases are covered.
> So far my testing has drawn a blank. But the logic seems difficult to
> reason about.
> 
> As we are basically allocating an index I suppose what is really needed for
> a correct implementation is a transaction aware index allocator, like we
> have for memory (rocker_port_kzalloc etc...).  But that does seem like
> overkill.
> 
> I think that we can make entry->index consistent across
> calls in the same transaction at the expense of breaking the
> rule that per-transaction data should be set during all transaction phases.
> 
> Something like this:
> 
> 
> 	if (trans != SWITCHDEV_TRANS_COMMIT)
> 		/* Avoid index being set to different values across calls
> 		 * to this function by the same caller within the same
> 		 * transaction.
> 		 */
> 		entry->index = rocker->neigh_tbl_next_index++;
> 	if (trans == SWITCHDEV_TRANS_PREPARE)
> 		return;
> 
> 

As long as it is guraded by rtnl lock, no worries about this race?  It
seems to be assumed that prepare-commit is guarded by rtnl lock,
according to commit c4f20321 ("rocker: support prepare-commit
transaction model").

But as you are concerned, it seems to be able to be called by another
caller, specifically, neigh_timer_handler() in interrupt context without
rtnl lock. IMHO, it should be fixed rather than avoiding the race here.

Thanks,
Toshiaki Makita