Wed, May 16, 2018 at 02:43:58PM CEST, vla...@mellanox.com wrote:
>
>On Wed 16 May 2018 at 12:26, Jiri Pirko <j...@resnulli.us> wrote:
>> Wed, May 16, 2018 at 01:55:06PM CEST, vla...@mellanox.com wrote:
>>>
>>>On Wed 16 May 2018 at 09:59, Jiri Pirko <j...@resnulli.us> wrote:
>>>> Mon, May 14, 2018 at 04:27:13PM CEST, vla...@mellanox.com wrote:
>>>>>Retry check-insert sequence in action init functions if action with same
>>>>>index was inserted concurrently.
>>>>>
>>>>>Signed-off-by: Vlad Buslov <vla...@mellanox.com>
>>>>>---
>>>>> net/sched/act_bpf.c        | 8 +++++++-
>>>>> net/sched/act_connmark.c   | 8 +++++++-
>>>>> net/sched/act_csum.c       | 8 +++++++-
>>>>> net/sched/act_gact.c       | 8 +++++++-
>>>>> net/sched/act_ife.c        | 8 +++++++-
>>>>> net/sched/act_ipt.c        | 8 +++++++-
>>>>> net/sched/act_mirred.c     | 8 +++++++-
>>>>> net/sched/act_nat.c        | 8 +++++++-
>>>>> net/sched/act_pedit.c      | 8 +++++++-
>>>>> net/sched/act_police.c     | 9 ++++++++-
>>>>> net/sched/act_sample.c     | 8 +++++++-
>>>>> net/sched/act_simple.c     | 9 ++++++++-
>>>>> net/sched/act_skbedit.c    | 8 +++++++-
>>>>> net/sched/act_skbmod.c     | 8 +++++++-
>>>>> net/sched/act_tunnel_key.c | 9 ++++++++-
>>>>> net/sched/act_vlan.c       | 9 ++++++++-
>>>>> 16 files changed, 116 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>>diff --git a/net/sched/act_bpf.c b/net/sched/act_bpf.c
>>>>>index 5554bf7..7e20fdc 100644
>>>>>--- a/net/sched/act_bpf.c
>>>>>+++ b/net/sched/act_bpf.c
>>>>>@@ -299,10 +299,16 @@ static int tcf_bpf_init(struct net *net, struct 
>>>>>nlattr *nla,
>>>>> 
>>>>>   parm = nla_data(tb[TCA_ACT_BPF_PARMS]);
>>>>> 
>>>>>+replay:
>>>>>   if (!tcf_idr_check(tn, parm->index, act, bind)) {
>>>>>           ret = tcf_idr_create(tn, parm->index, est, act,
>>>>>                                &act_bpf_ops, bind, true);
>>>>>-          if (ret < 0)
>>>>>+          /* Action with specified index was created concurrently.
>>>>>+           * Check again.
>>>>>+           */
>>>>>+          if (parm->index && ret == -ENOSPC)
>>>>>+                  goto replay;
>>>>>+          else if (ret)
>>>>
>>>> Hmm, looks like you are doing the same/very similar thing in every act
>>>> code. I think it would make sense to introduce a helper function for
>>>> this purpose.
>>>
>>>This code uses goto so it can't be easily refactored into standalone
>>>function. Could you specify which part of this code you suggest to
>>>extract?
>>
>> Hmm, looking at the code, I think that what would help is to have a
>> helper that would atomically check if index exists and if not, it would
>> allocate one. Something like:
>>
>>
>> int tcf_idr_check_alloc(struct tc_action_net *tn, u32 *index,
>>                      struct tc_action **a, int bind)
>> {
>>      struct tcf_idrinfo *idrinfo = tn->idrinfo;
>>      struct tc_action *p;
>>      int err;
>>
>>      spin_lock(&idrinfo->lock);
>>      if (*index) {
>>              p = idr_find(&idrinfo->action_idr, *index);
>>              if (p) {
>>                      if (bind)
>>                              p->tcfa_bindcnt++;
>>                      p->tcfa_refcnt++;
>>                      *a = p;
>>                      err = 0;
>>              } else {
>>                      *a = NULL;
>>                      err = idr_alloc_u32(idr, NULL, index,
>>                                          *index, GFP_ATOMIC);
>>              }
>>      } else {
>>              *index = 1;
>>              *a = NULL;
>>              err = idr_alloc_u32(idr, NULL, index, UINT_MAX, GFP_ATOMIC);
>>      }
>>      spin_unlock(&idrinfo->lock);
>>      return err;
>> }
>>
>> The act code would just check if "a" is NULL and if so, it would call
>> tcf_idr_create() with allocated index as arg.
>
>What about multiple actions that have arbitrary code between initial
>check and idr allocation that is currently inside tcf_idr_create()?

Why it would be a problem to have them after the allocation?

There is one issue though with my draft. tcf_idr_insert() function
which actually assigns a "p" pointer to the idr index is called later on.
Until that happens, the idr_find() would return NULL even if the index
is actually allocated. We cannot assign "p" in tcf_idr_check_alloc()
because it is allocated only later on in tcf_idr_create(). But that is
resolvable by the following trick:

int tcf_idr_check_alloc(struct tc_action_net *tn, u32 *index,
                        struct tc_action **a, int bind)
{
        struct tcf_idrinfo *idrinfo = tn->idrinfo;
        struct tc_action *p;
        int err;

again:
        spin_lock(&idrinfo->lock);
        if (*index) {
                p = idr_find(&idrinfo->action_idr, *index);
                if (IS_ERR(p)) {
                        /* This means that another process allocated
                         * index but did not assign the pointer yet.
                         */
                        spin_unlock(&idrinfo->lock);
                        goto again;
                }
                if (p) {
                        if (bind)
                                p->tcfa_bindcnt++;
                        p->tcfa_refcnt++;
                        *a = p;
                        err = 0;
                } else {
                        *a = NULL;
                        err = idr_alloc_u32(idr, NULL, index,
                                            *index, GFP_ATOMIC);
                        idr_replace(&idrinfo->action_idr,
                                    ERR_PTR(-EBUSY), *index);
                }
        } else {
                *index = 1;
                *a = NULL;
                err = idr_alloc_u32(idr, NULL, index, UINT_MAX, GFP_ATOMIC);
                idr_replace(&idrinfo->action_idr, ERR_PTR(-EBUSY), *index);
        }
        spin_unlock(&idrinfo->lock);
        return err;
}





>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>
>

Reply via email to