From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next V4 4/4] net/sched: Introduce act_tunnel_key
Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2016 06:16:26 -0700
Message-ID: <1472735786.5019.26.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com>
References: <1472647584-6713-1-git-send-email-hadarh@mellanox.com>
         <1472647584-6713-5-git-send-email-hadarh@mellanox.com>
         <CANn89i+ZnnJrLeSXadgDxWWT6q1Y+gPVoK8EJ417AzNfFKLQ+A@mail.gmail.com>
         <CAJL1qvE7Tpv0vmg6yRz7+Xh2T3rpqUvHshazK-N_6w2P-iv1hw@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Hadar Hen Zion <hadarh@mellanox.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@mellanox.com>,
        Jiri Benc <jbenc@redhat.com>,
        Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@mojatatu.com>,
        Shmulik Ladkani <shmulik.ladkani@gmail.com>,
        Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>,
        Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>,
        Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@mellanox.com>,
        Amir Vadai <amirva@mellanox.com>, Amir Vadai <amir@vadai.me>
To: Hadar Hen Zion <hadarh@dev.mellanox.co.il>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-pf0-f193.google.com ([209.85.192.193]:34437 "EHLO
        mail-pf0-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1752127AbcIANQ2 (ORCPT
        <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Thu, 1 Sep 2016 09:16:28 -0400
Received: by mail-pf0-f193.google.com with SMTP id g202so4407775pfb.1
        for <netdev@vger.kernel.org>; Thu, 01 Sep 2016 06:16:28 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAJL1qvE7Tpv0vmg6yRz7+Xh2T3rpqUvHshazK-N_6w2P-iv1hw@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On Thu, 2016-09-01 at 12:28 +0300, Hadar Hen Zion wrote:

> 
> As you suggested above, I can do it by adding "int action" to struct
> tcf_tunnel_key_paramse.
> But, it means that act_tunnel_key would have a different behavior than
> all the other actions and even though
> "struct tc_action" has a designated parameters to store this action we
> won't use it.
> So it won't be completely clean...
> 
> Do you think we have a cleaner way to protect it?

Fact that the act_ modules had a spinlock made them all share the same
structure.

Now we want RCU protection, here is the thing.

Say you want to access 3 different fields, A, B and C.

If you put A and B in the rcu protected pointer, but leave C in the
'control part, protected by spinlock' 

Then your fast path wont be able to have a consistent view of 3
variables A, B C.

It might read an old value of A & B, and the recently updated C,

Or it might read an old C, and the updated values of A & B

As Cong very kindly pointed to us/me, if we want to be 'clean', we want
to make sure we read a consistent 3-tuple.

I will send updates when I have time to act_mirred.c