On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 05:36:06PM +0900, Toshiaki Makita wrote:
> On 2015/05/20 16:48, Simon Horman wrote:
> > On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 03:15:23PM +0900, Toshiaki Makita wrote:
> >> On 2015/05/20 14:48, Simon Horman wrote:
> ...
> >>> static void _rocker_neigh_add(struct rocker *rocker,
> >>> + enum switchdev_trans trans,
> >>> struct rocker_neigh_tbl_entry *entry)
> >>> {
> >>> + if (trans == SWITCHDEV_TRANS_PREPARE)
> >>> + return;
> >>> entry->index = rocker->neigh_tbl_next_index++;
> >>
> >> Isn't index needed here? It looks to be used in later function call and
> >> logging.
> >
> > Thanks, that does not follow the usual model of setting values
> > during the PREPARE (and all other) transaction phase(s).
> >
> >> How about setting index like this?
> >>
> >> entry->index = rocker->neigh_tbl_next_index;
> >> if (trans == PREPARE)
> >> return;
> >> rocker->neigh_tbl_next_index++;
> >> ...
> >
> > I am concerned that _rocker_neigh_add() may be called by some other
> > caller while a transaction is in process and thus entry->index will
> > be inconsistent across callers.
> >
> > Perhaps we can convince ourselves that all the bases are covered.
> > So far my testing has drawn a blank. But the logic seems difficult to
> > reason about.
> >
> > As we are basically allocating an index I suppose what is really needed for
> > a correct implementation is a transaction aware index allocator, like we
> > have for memory (rocker_port_kzalloc etc...). But that does seem like
> > overkill.
> >
> > I think that we can make entry->index consistent across
> > calls in the same transaction at the expense of breaking the
> > rule that per-transaction data should be set during all transaction phases.
> >
> > Something like this:
> >
> >
> > if (trans != SWITCHDEV_TRANS_COMMIT)
> > /* Avoid index being set to different values across calls
> > * to this function by the same caller within the same
> > * transaction.
> > */
> > entry->index = rocker->neigh_tbl_next_index++;
> > if (trans == SWITCHDEV_TRANS_PREPARE)
> > return;
> >
> >
>
> As long as it is guraded by rtnl lock, no worries about this race? It
> seems to be assumed that prepare-commit is guarded by rtnl lock,
> according to commit c4f20321 ("rocker: support prepare-commit
> transaction model").
>
> But as you are concerned, it seems to be able to be called by another
> caller, specifically, neigh_timer_handler() in interrupt context without
> rtnl lock. IMHO, it should be fixed rather than avoiding the race here.
Yes, I believe that is the case I was seeing.
Scott, Jiri, how would you like to resolve this?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
