Re: [PATCH v2] rcu: fix a race in hlist_nulls_for_each_entry_rcu macro

["Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 11:17:46PM +0400, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> On 22.05.2013 21:45, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 05:07:07PM +0400, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> >>On 22.05.2013 16:30, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> >>>On Wed, 2013-05-22 at 15:58 +0400, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>+/*
> >>>>+ * Same as ACCESS_ONCE(), but used for accessing field of a structure.
> >>>>+ * The main goal is preventing compiler to store &ptr->field in a register.
> >>>
> >>>But &ptr->field is a constant during the whole duration of
> >>>udp4_lib_lookup2() and could be in a register, in my case field is at
> >>>offset 0, and ptr is a parameter (so could be in a 'register')
> >>>
> >>>The bug you found is that compiler caches the indirection  (ptr->field)
> >>>into a register, not that compiler stores &ptr->field into a register.
> >>>
> >>>>+ */
> >>>>+#define ACCESS_FIELD_ONCE(PTR, FIELD) (((volatile typeof(*PTR) *)PTR)->FIELD)
> >>>>+
> >>>
> >>>Here we force the compiler to consider ptr as volatile, but semantically
> >>>it is not required in rcu_dereference(ptr->field)
> >>
> >>Actually, we need to mark an "address of a place" where the field value is
> >>located as volatile before dereferencing. I have no idea how to do it in another way,
> >>except using multiple casts and offsetof's, but, IMHO, it will be even more complex:
> >>	ACCESS_ONCE(typeof(&ptr->field)((char*)ptr + offsetof(typeof(*ptr), field)))
> 
> Probably I miss one more ACCESS_ONCE() in this expression. Should be something like
> ACCESS_ONCE(typeof(&ptr->field)((char*)ACCESS_ONCE(ptr) + offsetof(typeof(*ptr), field))) .
> But this is not a working example, just an illustration against using ACCESS_ONCE() here.
> 
> >Why not just ACCESS_ONCE(ptr->field)?  Or if it is the thing that
> >ptr->field points to that is subject to change, ACCESS_ONCE(*ptr->field)?
> >
> >Or rcu_dereference(ptr->field), as appropriate?
> 
> It's not enough. So is the code now, and it doesn't work as expected.
> You can't write (ptr->field) without ptr being marked as a volatile pointer.
> 
> I try to explain the problem once more from scratch:
> 
> 1) We have the following pseudo-code (based on udp4_lib_lookup2()):
> 
> static void some_func(struct hlist_nulls_head *head) {
> 	struct hlist_nulls_node *node;
> 
> begin:
> 	for (node = rcu_dereference(head->first);
> 		!is_nulls(node) & ...;
> 		node = rcu_dereference(node->next)) {
> 		<...>
> 	}
> 
> 	if (restart_condition)
> 		goto begin;
> 
> 2) A problem occurs when restart_condition is true and we jump to the begin label.
> We do not recalculate (head + offsetof(head, first)) address, we just dereference
> again the OLD (head->first) pointer. So, we get a node, that WAS the first node in a
> previous time instead of current first node. That node can be dead, or, for instance,
> can be a head of another chain.

OK, this is what I was referring to when I said that the RCU list macros
assume that the list header is static (or equivalently, appropriately
protected).

With some_func() as written above, you would need to return some sort
of failure indication from some_func(), and have the caller refetch head.
Otherwise, as far as gcc is concerned, the value of the parameter head
is constant throughout some_func().

> It is correct from gcc's point of view, since it doesn't expect the head pointer
> to change, and this address is just (head + constant offset).

Agreed.

How does the caller calculate the value to pass in through the argument "head"?

> 3) If we start with a wrong first element, restart_condition can be always true, so,
> we get an infinite loop. In any case, we do not scan the whole (socket) chain,
> as expected.

Agreed.

> This scenario is absolutely real and causes our DNS servers to hang
> sometimes under high load.

I completely believe that such a hang could happen.

> Note, that there are no problems if we don't restart a loop. Also, it is highly
> dependent on gcc options, and the code in the body of the loop. Even small changes
> in the code (like adding debugging print) preventing reproducing of the issue.

Again, I believe that your retry logic needs to extend back into the
calling function for your some_func() example above.

							Thanx, Paul