From: Cosmin Ratiu <cratiu@nvidia.com>
To: "liuhangbin@gmail.com" <liuhangbin@gmail.com>
Cc: "shuah@kernel.org" <shuah@kernel.org>,
"andrew+netdev@lunn.ch" <andrew+netdev@lunn.ch>,
"davem@davemloft.net" <davem@davemloft.net>,
"jv@jvosburgh.net" <jv@jvosburgh.net>,
"jarod@redhat.com" <jarod@redhat.com>,
"razor@blackwall.org" <razor@blackwall.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"pabeni@redhat.com" <pabeni@redhat.com>,
Jianbo Liu <jianbol@nvidia.com>,
"edumazet@google.com" <edumazet@google.com>,
"horms@kernel.org" <horms@kernel.org>,
"kuba@kernel.org" <kuba@kernel.org>,
Tariq Toukan <tariqt@nvidia.com>,
"netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
"steffen.klassert@secunet.com" <steffen.klassert@secunet.com>,
"linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org"
<linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 net 1/3] bonding: move mutex lock to a work queue for XFRM GC tasks
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2025 11:05:47 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <0605dc53cdcee5ea71b89114f2318dd5d0a83276.camel@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Z77jc8AB3D2xWczl@fedora>
On Wed, 2025-02-26 at 09:48 +0000, Hangbin Liu wrote:
> Hi Cosmin,
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 02:00:05PM +0000, Cosmin Ratiu wrote:
> > This got me to stare at the code again. What if we move the removal
> > of
> > the xs from bond->ipsec from bond_ipsec_del_sa to
> > bond_ipsec_free_sa?
> > bond_ipsec_free_sa, unlike bond_ipsec_del_sa, is not called with x-
> > > lock held. It is called from the xfrm gc task or directly via
> > xfrm_state_put_sync and therefore wouldn't suffer from the locking
> > issue.
> >
> > The tricky part is to make sure that inactive bond->ipsec entries
> > (after bond_ipsec_del_sa calls) do not cause issues if there's a
> > migration (bond_ipsec_del_sa_all is called) happening before
> > bond_ipsec_free_sa. Perhaps filtering by x->km.state !=
> > XFRM_STATE_DEAD
> > in bond_ipsec_del_sa_all.
> >
> > What do you think about this idea?
>
> Thanks a lot for the comments. I also skipped the DEAD xs in
> add_sa_all.
> What about the patch like:
This is what I had in mind, thanks for proposing it. Maybe you should
package it in a new submission with a proper title/etc.?
I'll do the initial review here.
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
> b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
> index e45bba240cbc..0e4db43a833a 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
> @@ -537,6 +537,12 @@ static void bond_ipsec_add_sa_all(struct bonding
> *bond)
> }
>
> list_for_each_entry(ipsec, &bond->ipsec_list, list) {
> + /* No need to handle DEAD XFRM, as it has already
> been
> + * deleted and will be freed later.
> + */
Nit: Maybe rephrase that as "Skip dead xfrm states, they'll be freed
later."
> + if (ipsec->xs->km.state == XFRM_STATE_DEAD)
> + continue;
> +
> /* If new state is added before ipsec_lock acquired
> */
> if (ipsec->xs->xso.real_dev == real_dev)
> continue;
> @@ -592,15 +598,6 @@ static void bond_ipsec_del_sa(struct xfrm_state
> *xs)
> real_dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_delete(xs);
> out:
> netdev_put(real_dev, &tracker);
> - mutex_lock(&bond->ipsec_lock);
> - list_for_each_entry(ipsec, &bond->ipsec_list, list) {
> - if (ipsec->xs == xs) {
> - list_del(&ipsec->list);
> - kfree(ipsec);
> - break;
> - }
> - }
> - mutex_unlock(&bond->ipsec_lock);
> }
>
> static void bond_ipsec_del_sa_all(struct bonding *bond)
> @@ -617,6 +614,12 @@ static void bond_ipsec_del_sa_all(struct bonding
> *bond)
>
> mutex_lock(&bond->ipsec_lock);
> list_for_each_entry(ipsec, &bond->ipsec_list, list) {
> + /* No need to handle DEAD XFRM, as it has already
> been
> + * deleted and will be freed later.
> + */
> + if (ipsec->xs->km.state == XFRM_STATE_DEAD)
> + continue;
> +
If this doesn't free dead entries now and bond_ipsec_add_sa_all is
called soon after, the pending bond_ipsec_free_sa() call will then hit
the WARN_ON(xs->xso.real_dev != real_dev) before attempting to call
free on the wrong device.
To fix that, these entries should be freed here and the WARN_ON in
bond_ipsec_free_sa() should be converted to an if...goto out, so that
bond_ipsec_free_sa() calls would hit one of these conditions:
1. "if (!slave)", when no active device exists.
2. "if (!xs->xso.real_dev)", when xdo_dev_state_add() failed.
3. "if (xs->xso.real_dev != real_dev)", when a DEAD xs was already
freed by bond_ipsec_del_sa_all() migration to a new device.
In all 3 cases, xdo_dev_state_free() shouldn't be called, only xs
removed from the bond->ipsec list.
I hope I didn't miss any corner case.
> if (!ipsec->xs->xso.real_dev)
> continue;
>
> @@ -666,6 +669,16 @@ static void bond_ipsec_free_sa(struct xfrm_state
> *xs)
> real_dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_free(xs);
> out:
> netdev_put(real_dev, &tracker);
> +
> + mutex_lock(&bond->ipsec_lock);
> + list_for_each_entry(ipsec, &bond->ipsec_list, list) {
> + if (ipsec->xs == xs) {
> + list_del(&ipsec->list);
> + kfree(ipsec);
> + break;
> + }
> + }
> + mutex_unlock(&bond->ipsec_lock);
> }
>
> /**
Cosmin.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-02-26 11:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-02-25 9:40 [PATCHv2 net 0/3] bond: fix xfrm offload issues Hangbin Liu
2025-02-25 9:40 ` [PATCHv2 net 1/3] bonding: move mutex lock to a work queue for XFRM GC tasks Hangbin Liu
2025-02-25 11:05 ` Nikolay Aleksandrov
2025-02-25 13:13 ` Hangbin Liu
2025-02-25 13:30 ` Nikolay Aleksandrov
2025-02-25 14:00 ` Cosmin Ratiu
2025-02-25 14:27 ` Nikolay Aleksandrov
2025-02-26 9:48 ` Hangbin Liu
2025-02-26 11:05 ` Cosmin Ratiu [this message]
2025-02-26 12:07 ` Hangbin Liu
2025-02-26 14:05 ` Cosmin Ratiu
2025-02-25 9:40 ` [PATCHv2 net 2/3] bonding: fix xfrm offload feature setup on active-backup mode Hangbin Liu
2025-02-25 9:40 ` [PATCHv2 net 3/3] selftests: bonding: add ipsec offload test Hangbin Liu
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=0605dc53cdcee5ea71b89114f2318dd5d0a83276.camel@nvidia.com \
--to=cratiu@nvidia.com \
--cc=andrew+netdev@lunn.ch \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=horms@kernel.org \
--cc=jarod@redhat.com \
--cc=jianbol@nvidia.com \
--cc=jv@jvosburgh.net \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=liuhangbin@gmail.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=razor@blackwall.org \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
--cc=steffen.klassert@secunet.com \
--cc=tariqt@nvidia.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox