Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] [PATCH] Re: batman-adv: Correct rcu refcounting for gw_node

Linus Lüssing
2011-02-03T09:55:25Z

Hi Sven,

On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 10:42:46PM +0100, Sven Eckelmann wrote:
> > gw_deselet():
> > * is the refcount at this time always 1 for gw_node, can the null
> > pointer check + a rcu_dereference be ommited? (at least that's what
> > it looks like when comparing to the rcuref.txt example)
>
> Why can't it be NULL? And _always_ use rcu_dereference. What example tells you
> that it isn't needed? None of the examples has any kind of rcu pointer in it
> (just el as pointer which is stored in a struct were the pointer inside the
> struct is rcu protected).
Ok, you got a point there with the always-rcu-dereference pointers. I
somehow was thinking that in between the spin-lock/unlock there
could possibly be no other thread reading/writing to it then - but
I guess at that moment I forgot about the reordering and the whole
point of using the rcu macros between the spinlock there :). So,
yes, you're right with that one, will change it.

For the NULL pointer, guess you're right again. I was looking at
the delete() example in rcuref.txt which was not doing any NULL
pointer check. But either that's the case there because it's more
pseudo-code there or because it's more related to lists, meaning
that after the delete_element there it's not in the list anymore
and not possible for any other thread to have the idea to free the
same thing again.
>
>
> > gw_get_selected():
> > * Probably the orig_node's refcounting has to be made atomic, too?
>
> This part is still a little bit ugly and I cannot give you an easy answer.
> Just think about following:
> * Hash list is a bunch of rcu protected lists
> * pointer to originator is stored inside a bucket (list elements inside the
> hash)
> * hash bucket wants to get removed - call_rcu; reference count of the
> originator is decremented immediately
> * (!!!! lots of reordering of read and write commands inside the cpu!!!! -
> aren't we happy about the added complexity which tries to hide the memory
> latency?)
> * the originator was removed, the bucket which is removed in the call_rcu
> still points to the removed originator
> * a parallel running operation tries to find a originator, the rcu list
> iterator gets the to-be-deleted bucket to the originator
> * the pointer to the already removed originator inside the bucket is
> dereferenced, data is read/written -> Kernel Oops
>
> Does this sound scary? At least it could be used in some horror movies (and I
> would watch them).
>
> But that is the other problem I currently have with the state of batman-adv in
> trunk - and I think I forget to tell you about it after the release of
> v2011.0.0.
>
> So, a good idea would be the removal of the buckets for the hash. Usage of
> "struct hlist_node" inside the hash elements should be a good starting point.
> But think about the problem that the different hashes could have the same
> element. So you need for each distinct hash an extra "struct hlist_node"
> inside the element which should be part of the hash. The hash_add (and
> related) functions don't get the actual pointer to the element, but the
> pointer to the correct "struct hlist_node" inside the element/struct. The
> comparison and hashing function would also receive "struct hlist_node" as
> parameter and must get the pointer to the element using the container_of
> macro.
>
>
> > @@ -171,7 +172,7 @@ struct bat_priv {
> > struct delayed_work hna_work;
> > struct delayed_work orig_work;
> > struct delayed_work vis_work;
> > - struct gw_node *curr_gw;
> > + struct gw_node *curr_gw; /* rcu protected pointer */
> > struct vis_info *my_vis_info;
> > };
>
> Sry, but I have to say that: FAIL ;)
>
> I think it should look that way:
> > - struct gw_node *curr_gw;
> > + struct gw_node __rcu *curr_gw;
Eh, had been looking at whatisRCU.txt and there gbl_foo in section
3 did not have a "__rcu" (actually I hadn't seen that in any of the
documentations before).
>
> Best regards,
> Sven

Cheers, Linus