From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Tariq Toukan <tariqt@mellanox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net/xdp: Fix suspicious RCU usage warning
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2018 17:13:54 +0300
Message-ID: <6ed9d782-13dd-d5b5-6b65-e583356c06d5@mellanox.com>
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>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        Eran Ben Elisha <eranbe@mellanox.com>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@redhat.com>
To: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>,
        Tariq Toukan <tariqt@mellanox.com>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-he1eur01on0086.outbound.protection.outlook.com ([104.47.0.86]:11591
        "EHLO EUR01-HE1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1728671AbeGROw3 (ORCPT <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 18 Jul 2018 10:52:29 -0400
In-Reply-To: <18c18ecb-173a-2df0-1189-b98b10624bc6@iogearbox.net>
Content-Language: en-US
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>



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?