Re: [v3 PATCH] rhashtable: Fix rhashtable_try_insert test

[Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org>]

On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 11:15:19AM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 06:22:40PM +0000, Michael Kelley wrote:
> >
> > This patch passes my tests. I'm doing a narrow test to verify that
> > the boot failure when opening the Mellanox NIC is no longer occurring.
> > I also unloaded/reloaded the mlx5 driver a couple of times. For good
> > measure, I then did a full Linux kernel build, and all is good. My testing
> > does not broadly verify correct operation of rhashtable except as it
> > gets exercised implicitly by these basic tests.
> 
> Thanks for testing! The patch needs one more change though as
> moving the atomic_inc outside of the lock was a bad idea on my
> part.  This could cause atomic_inc/atomic_dec to be reordered
> thus resulting in an underflow.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> ---8<---
> The test on whether rhashtable_insert_one did an insertion relies
> on the value returned by rhashtable_lookup_one.  Unfortunately that
> value is overwritten after rhashtable_insert_one returns.  Fix this
> by moving the test before data gets overwritten.
> 
> Simplify the test as only data == NULL matters.
> 
> Finally move atomic_inc back within the lock as otherwise it may
> be reordered with the atomic_dec on the removal side, potentially
> leading to an underflow.
> 
> Reported-by: Michael Kelley <mhklinux@outlook.com>
> Fixes: e1d3422c95f0 ("rhashtable: Fix potential deadlock by moving schedule_work outside lock")
> Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>

Reviewed-by: Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org>

> diff --git a/lib/rhashtable.c b/lib/rhashtable.c
> index bf956b85455a..0e9a1d4cf89b 100644
> --- a/lib/rhashtable.c
> +++ b/lib/rhashtable.c
> @@ -611,21 +611,23 @@ static void *rhashtable_try_insert(struct rhashtable *ht, const void *key,
>  			new_tbl = rht_dereference_rcu(tbl->future_tbl, ht);
>  			data = ERR_PTR(-EAGAIN);
>  		} else {
> +			bool inserted;
> +
>  			flags = rht_lock(tbl, bkt);
>  			data = rhashtable_lookup_one(ht, bkt, tbl,
>  						     hash, key, obj);
>  			new_tbl = rhashtable_insert_one(ht, bkt, tbl,
>  							hash, obj, data);
> +			inserted = data && !new_tbl;
> +			if (inserted)
> +				atomic_inc(&ht->nelems);
>  			if (PTR_ERR(new_tbl) != -EEXIST)
>  				data = ERR_CAST(new_tbl);
>  
>  			rht_unlock(tbl, bkt, flags);
>  
> -			if (PTR_ERR(data) == -ENOENT && !new_tbl) {
> -				atomic_inc(&ht->nelems);
> -				if (rht_grow_above_75(ht, tbl))
> -					schedule_work(&ht->run_work);
> -			}
> +			if (inserted && rht_grow_above_75(ht, tbl))
> +				schedule_work(&ht->run_work);

That makes sense, since data could be ERR_PTR(-ENOENT) and ERR_PTR(-EAGAIN), and
the object being inserted, which means that nelems should be increased.

It was hard to review this patch, basically rhashtable_insert_one()
returns three type of values, and you are interested in only one case,
when the obj was inserted.

These are the type of values that is coming from
rhashtable_insert_one():

  1) NULL: if object was inserted OR if data is NULL
  2) Non error and !NULL: A new table to look at
  3) ERR: Definitely not added

I am wondering if we decoupled the first case, and only return NULL iff
the object was added, it would simplify this logic.

Something like the following (not tested):

	diff --git a/lib/rhashtable.c b/lib/rhashtable.c
	index 3e555d012ed60..5a0ec71e990ee 100644
	--- a/lib/rhashtable.c
	+++ b/lib/rhashtable.c
	@@ -554,7 +554,7 @@ static struct bucket_table *rhashtable_insert_one(
			return ERR_PTR(-EEXIST);

		if (PTR_ERR(data) != -EAGAIN && PTR_ERR(data) != -ENOENT)
	-               return ERR_CAST(data);
	+               return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);

		new_tbl = rht_dereference_rcu(tbl->future_tbl, ht);
		if (new_tbl)


Thanks for fixing it,
--breno