From: Tony Lu <tonylu@linux.alibaba.com>
To: Wen Gu <guwen@linux.alibaba.com>
Cc: kgraul@linux.ibm.com, davem@davemloft.net, kuba@kernel.org,
linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net/smc: Avoid overwriting the copies of clcsock callback functions
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2022 10:32:16 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YgXKsNIdJIgEhEkd@TonyMac-Alibaba> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <fb71bcc5-77ad-698c-b025-36e1910f868f@linux.alibaba.com>
On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 04:56:00PM +0800, Wen Gu wrote:
>
>
> On 2022/2/10 10:50 am, Tony Lu wrote:
>
> > I am wondering that there is a potential racing. If ->use_fallback is
> > setted to true, but the rest of replacing process is on the way, others
> > who tested and passed ->use_fallback, they would get old value before
> > replacing.
> >
>
> Thanks for your comments.
>
> I understand your concern. But when I went through all the places that
> check for smc->use_fallback, I haven't found the exact potential racing
> point. Please point out if I missed something. Thank you.
>
> In my humble opinion, most of the operations after smc->use_fallback check
> have no direct relationship with what did in smc_switch_to_fallback() (the
> replacement of clcsock callback functions), except for which in smc_sendmsg(),
> smc_recvmsg() and smc_sendpage():
>
> smc_sendmsg():
>
> if (smc->use_fallback) {
> rc = smc->clcsock->ops->sendmsg(smc->clcsock, msg, len);
> }
>
> smc_recvmsg():
>
> if (smc->use_fallback) {
> rc = smc->clcsock->ops->recvmsg(smc->clcsock, msg, len, flags);
> }
>
> smc_sendpage():
>
> if (smc->use_fallback) {
> rc = kernel_sendpage(smc->clcsock, page, offset,
> size, flags);
> }
>
> If smc->use_fallback is set to true, but callback functions (sk_data_ready ...)
> of clcsock haven't been replaced yet at this moment, there may be a racing as
> you described.
>
> But it won't happen, because fallback must already be done before sending and receiving.
>
> What do you think about it?
>
I am concerning about the non-blocking work in workqueue. If we can make
sure the order of fallback is determined, it would be safe. From your
analysis, I think it is safe for now.
Let's back to the patch, the original version of switch_to_fallback()
has a implicit reentrant semantics. This fixes should work, thanks.
Thanks for your detailed investigation.
Best regards,
Tony Lu
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-02-11 2:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-02-09 14:10 [PATCH net] net/smc: Avoid overwriting the copies of clcsock callback functions Wen Gu
2022-02-10 2:50 ` Tony Lu
2022-02-10 8:56 ` Wen Gu
2022-02-11 2:32 ` Tony Lu [this message]
2022-02-11 12:10 ` patchwork-bot+netdevbpf
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=YgXKsNIdJIgEhEkd@TonyMac-Alibaba \
--to=tonylu@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=guwen@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=kgraul@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/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