From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net/xdp: Fix suspicious RCU usage warning
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2018 01:04:40 +0200
Message-ID: <e4310900-3f2e-3118-59fc-cc9aa5b0b1dc@iogearbox.net>
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>
 <20180719213628.msccswfqkzwo5vrk@ast-mbp>
 <44cb66c6-2542-3f6a-c426-5b1d1665ea61@mellanox.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: "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>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from www62.your-server.de ([213.133.104.62]:56134 "EHLO
        www62.your-server.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1727982AbeHMBoT (ORCPT
        <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Sun, 12 Aug 2018 21:44:19 -0400
In-Reply-To: <44cb66c6-2542-3f6a-c426-5b1d1665ea61@mellanox.com>
Content-Language: en-US
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On 08/12/2018 10:45 AM, Tariq Toukan wrote:
> 
> 
> On 20/07/2018 12:36 AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> I'm re-spinning this.
> Can it still go to net, or better send it to bpf-next ?

Please rebase against bpf-next and we route it to stable, thanks!