Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive lock (v11)

[Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@vyatta.com>]

On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 09:13:52 -0700 (PDT)
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> 
> Ok, so others already pointed out how dangerous/buggy this looks, but I'd 
> like to strengthen that a bit more:
> 
> On Mon, 20 Apr 2009, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > +
> > +/**
> > + * xt_table_info_rdlock_bh - recursive read lock for xt table info
> > + *
> > + * Table processing calls this to hold off any changes to table
> > + * (on current CPU). Always leaves with bottom half disabled.
> > + * If called recursively, then assumes bh/preempt already disabled.
> > + */
> > +void xt_info_rdlock_bh(void)
> > +{
> > +	struct xt_info_lock *lock;
> > +
> > +	preempt_disable();
> > +	lock = &__get_cpu_var(xt_info_locks);
> > +	if (likely(++lock->depth == 0))
> > +		spin_lock_bh(&lock->lock);
> > +	preempt_enable_no_resched();
> > +}
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(xt_info_rdlock_bh);
> 
> This function is FUCKED UP.
> 
> It's total crap for several reasons"
> 
>  - the already-mentioned race with bottom half locking.
> 
>    If bottom halfs aren't already disabled, then if a bottom half comes in 
>    after the "++lock->depth" and before the spin_lock_bh(), then you will 
>    have no locking AT ALL for the processing of that bottom half - it will 
>    just increment the lock depth again, and nobody will have locked 
>    anything at all.
> 
>    And if for some reason, you can prove that bottom half processing is 
>    already disabled, then ALL THAT OTHER CRAP is just that - CRAP. The 
>    whole preemption disabling, the whole "_bh()" thing, everything.
> 
>    So either it's horribly buggy, or it's horribly broken and pointless. 
>    Take your pick.
> 
>  - the total lack of comments. Why does that "count" protect anything? 
>    It's not a recursive lock, since there is no ownership (two 
>    independent accessors could call this and both "get" the lock), so you 
>    had damn well better create some big-ass comments about why it's ok in 
>    this case, and what the rules are that make it ok.
> 
>    So DON'T GO AROUND CALLING IT A RECURSIVE LOCK! Don't write comments 
>    that are TOTAL AND UTTER SH*T! Just DON'T!
> 
>    It's a "reader lock". It's not "recursive".  It never was recursive, it 
>    never will be, and calling it that is just a sign that whoever wrote 
>    the function is a moron and doesn't know what he is doing. STOP DOING THIS!
> 
>  - that _idiotic_ "preempt_enable_no_resched()". F*ck me, but the comment 
>    already says that preemption is disabled when exiting, so why does it 
>    even bother to enable it? Why play those mindless games with preemption 
>    counts, knowing that they are bogus?
> 
>    Do it readably. Disable preemption first, and just re-enable it at 
>    UNLOCK time. No odd pseudo-reenables anywhere.
> 
> Oh, I know very well that the spli-locking will disable preemption, so 
> it's "correct" to play those games, but the point is, it's just damn 
> stupid and annoying. It just makes the source code actively _misleading_ 
> to see crap like that - it looks like you enabled preemption, when in fact 
> the code very much on purpose does _not_ enable preemption at all. 
> 
> In other words, I really REALLY hate that patch. I think it looks slightly 
> better than Eric Dumazet's original patch (at least the locking subtlety 
> is now in a function of its own and _could_ be commented upon sanely and 
> if it wasn't broken it might be acceptable), but quite frankly, I'd still 
> horribly disgusted with the crap.
> 
> Why are you doing this insane thing? If you want a read-lock, just use the 
> damned read-write locks already! Ad far as I can tell, this lock is in 
> _no_ way better than just using those counting reader-writer locks, except 
> it is open-coded and looks buggy.
> 
> There is basically _never_ a good reason to re-implement locking 
> primitives: you'll just introduce bugs. As proven very ably by the amount 
> of crap above in what is supposed to be a very simple function.
> 
> If you want a counting read-lock (in _order_ to allow recursion, but not 
> because the lock itself is somehow recursive!), then that function should 
> look like this:
> 
> 	void xt_info_rdlock_bh(void)
> 	{
> 		struct xt_info_lock *lock
> 
> 		local_bh_disable();
> 		lock = &__get_cpu_var(xt_info_locks);
> 		read_lock(&lock->lock);
> 	}
> 
> And then the "unlock" should be the reverse. No games, no crap, and 
> hopefully then no bugs. And if you do it that way, you don't even need the 
> comments, although quite frankly, it probably makes a lot of sense to talk 
> about the interaction between "local_bh_disable()" and the preempt count, 
> and why you're not using "read_lock_bh()".
> 
> And if you don't want a read-lock, then fine - don't use a read-lock, do 
> something else. But then don't just re-implement it (badly) either and 
> call it something else!
> 
> 			Linus
> 
> PS: Ingo, why do the *_bh() functions in kernel/spinlock.c do _both_ a 
> "local_bh_disable()" and a "preempt_disable()"? BH disable should disable 
> preemption too, no? Or am I confused? In which case we need that in 
> the above rdlock_bh too.

Ah a nice day, with Linus giving constructive feedback. Too bad he has
to channel it out of the dark side.