Re: [RFC net-next 0/2] prevent sync issues with hw offload of flower

[Vlad Buslov <vladbu@mellanox.com>]

On Thu 03 Oct 2019 at 02:14, John Hurley <john.hurley@netronome.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Putting this out an RFC built on net-next. It fixes some issues
> discovered in testing when using the TC API of OvS to generate flower
> rules and subsequently offloading them to HW. Rules seen contain the same
> match fields or may be rule modifications run as a delete plus an add.
> We're seeing race conditions whereby the rules present in kernel flower
> are out of sync with those offloaded. Note that there are some issues
> that will need fixed in the RFC before it becomes a patch such as
> potential races between releasing locks and re-taking them. However, I'm
> putting this out for comments or potential alternative solutions.
>
> The main cause of the races seem to be in the chain table of cls_api. If
> a tcf_proto is destroyed then it is removed from its chain. If a new
> filter is then added to the same chain with the same priority and protocol
> a new tcf_proto will be created - this may happen before the first is
> fully removed and the hw offload message sent to the driver. In cls_flower
> this means that the fl_ht_insert_unique() function can pass as its
> hashtable is associated with the tcf_proto. We are then in a position
> where the 'delete' and the 'add' are in a race to get offloaded. We also
> noticed that doing an offload add, then checking if a tcf_proto is
> concurrently deleting, then remove the offload if it is, can extend the
> out of order messages. Drivers do not expect to get duplicate rules.
> However, the kernel TC datapath they are not duplicates so we can get out
> of sync here.
>
> The RFC fixes this by adding a pre_destroy hook to cls_api that is called
> when a tcf_proto is signaled to be destroyed but before it is removed from
> its chain (which is essentially the lock for allowing duplicates in
> flower). Flower then uses this new hook to send the hw delete messages
> from tcf_proto destroys, preventing them racing with duplicate adds. It
> also moves the check for 'deleting' to before the sending the hw add
> message.
>
> John Hurley (2):
>   net: sched: add tp_op for pre_destroy
>   net: sched: fix tp destroy race conditions in flower
>
>  include/net/sch_generic.h |  3 +++
>  net/sched/cls_api.c       | 29 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>  net/sched/cls_flower.c    | 55 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
>  3 files changed, 61 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)

Hi John,

Thanks for working on this!

Are there any other sources for race conditions described in this
letter? When you describe tcf_proto deletion you say "main cause" but
don't provide any others. If tcf_proto is the only problematic part,
then it might be worth to look into alternative ways to force concurrent
users to wait for proto deletion/destruction to be properly finished.
Maybe having some table that maps chain id + prio to completion would be
simpler approach? With such infra tcf_proto_create() can wait for
previous proto with same prio and chain to be fully destroyed (including
offloads) before creating a new one.

Regards,
Vlad