From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net/xdp: Fix suspicious RCU usage warning
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 14:36:29 -0700
Message-ID: <20180719213628.msccswfqkzwo5vrk@ast-mbp>
References: <1531840238-30818-1-git-send-email-tariqt@mellanox.com>
 <1531840238-30818-2-git-send-email-tariqt@mellanox.com>
 <20180717164726.ommc2ddosha6zl6d@ast-mbp>
 <18c18ecb-173a-2df0-1189-b98b10624bc6@iogearbox.net>
 <6ed9d782-13dd-d5b5-6b65-e583356c06d5@mellanox.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        Eran Ben Elisha <eranbe@mellanox.com>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@redhat.com>
To: Tariq Toukan <tariqt@mellanox.com>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-pg1-f194.google.com ([209.85.215.194]:39507 "EHLO
        mail-pg1-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1730057AbeGSWVb (ORCPT
        <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Thu, 19 Jul 2018 18:21:31 -0400
Received: by mail-pg1-f194.google.com with SMTP id g2-v6so4898375pgs.6
        for <netdev@vger.kernel.org>; Thu, 19 Jul 2018 14:36:33 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <6ed9d782-13dd-d5b5-6b65-e583356c06d5@mellanox.com>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 05:13:54PM +0300, Tariq Toukan wrote:
> 
> 
> On 17/07/2018 10:27 PM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> > On 07/17/2018 06:47 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 06:10:38PM +0300, Tariq Toukan wrote:
> > > > Fix the warning below by calling rhashtable_lookup under
> > > > RCU read lock.
> > > > 
> 
> ...
> 
> > > >   	mutex_lock(&mem_id_lock);
> > > > +	rcu_read_lock();
> > > >   	xa = rhashtable_lookup(mem_id_ht, &id, mem_id_rht_params);
> > > > +	rcu_read_unlock();
> > > >   	if (!xa) {
> > > 
> > > if it's an actual bug rcu_read_unlock seems to be misplaced.
> > > It silences the warn, but rcu section looks wrong.
> > 
> > I think that whole piece in __xdp_rxq_info_unreg_mem_model() should be:
> > 
> >    mutex_lock(&mem_id_lock);
> >    xa = rhashtable_lookup_fast(mem_id_ht, &id, mem_id_rht_params);
> >    if (xa && rhashtable_remove_fast(mem_id_ht, &xa->node, mem_id_rht_params) == 0)
> >            call_rcu(&xa->rcu, __xdp_mem_allocator_rcu_free);
> >    mutex_unlock(&mem_id_lock);
> > 
> > Technically the RCU read side plus rhashtable_lookup() is the same, but lets
> > use proper api. From the doc (https://lwn.net/Articles/751374/) object removal
> > is wrapped around the RCU read side additionally, but in our case we're behind
> > mem_id_lock for insertion/removal serialization.
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Daniel
> > 
> 
> Just as Daniel stated, I think there's no actual bug here, but we still want
> to silence the RCU warning.
> 
> Alexei, did you mean getting the if statement into the RCU lock critical
> section?

If what Daniel proposes silences the warn, I'd rather do that.
Pattern like:
  rcu_lock;
  val = lookup();
  rcu_unlock;
  if (val)
will cause people to question the quality of the code and whether
authors of the code understand rcu.
There should be a way to silence the warn without adding
"wrong on the first glance" code.