| Message ID | 17EC94B0A072C34B8DCF0D30AD16044A028748C0@BPXM09GP.gisp.nec.co.jp |
|---|---|
| State | Not Applicable, archived |
| Delegated to: | David Miller |
| Headers | show |
Kosuke Tatsukawa <tatsu@ab.jp.nec.com> writes: > There are several places in net/sunrpc/svcsock.c which calls > waitqueue_active() without calling a memory barrier. Add a memory > barrier just as in wq_has_sleeper(). > > I found this issue when I was looking through the linux source code > for places calling waitqueue_active() before wake_up*(), but without > preceding memory barriers, after sending a patch to fix a similar > issue in drivers/tty/n_tty.c (Details about the original issue can be > found here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/9/28/849). hi, this feels like the wrong approach to the problem. It requires extra 'smb_mb's to be spread around which are hard to understand as easy to forget. A quick look seems to suggest that (nearly) every waitqueue_active() will need an smb_mb. Could we just put the smb_mb() inside waitqueue_active()?? Thanks, NeilBrown > > Signed-off-by: Kosuke Tatsukawa <tatsu@ab.jp.nec.com> > --- > v2: > - Fixed compiler warnings caused by type mismatch > v1: > - https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/10/8/993 > --- > net/sunrpc/svcsock.c | 6 ++++++ > 1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c b/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c > index 0c81202..ec19444 100644 > --- a/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c > +++ b/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c > @@ -414,6 +414,7 @@ static void svc_udp_data_ready(struct sock *sk) > set_bit(XPT_DATA, &svsk->sk_xprt.xpt_flags); > svc_xprt_enqueue(&svsk->sk_xprt); > } > + smp_mb(); > if (wq && waitqueue_active(wq)) > wake_up_interruptible(wq); > }
Neil Brown wrote: > Kosuke Tatsukawa <tatsu@ab.jp.nec.com> writes: > >> There are several places in net/sunrpc/svcsock.c which calls >> waitqueue_active() without calling a memory barrier. Add a memory >> barrier just as in wq_has_sleeper(). >> >> I found this issue when I was looking through the linux source code >> for places calling waitqueue_active() before wake_up*(), but without >> preceding memory barriers, after sending a patch to fix a similar >> issue in drivers/tty/n_tty.c (Details about the original issue can be >> found here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/9/28/849). > > hi, > this feels like the wrong approach to the problem. It requires extra > 'smb_mb's to be spread around which are hard to understand as easy to > forget. > > A quick look seems to suggest that (nearly) every waitqueue_active() > will need an smb_mb. Could we just put the smb_mb() inside > waitqueue_active()?? <snip> There are around 200 occurrences of waitqueue_active() in the kernel source, and most of the places which use it before wake_up are either protected by some spin lock, or already has a memory barrier or some kind of atomic operation before it. Simply adding smp_mb() to waitqueue_active() would incur extra cost in many cases and won't be a good idea. Another way to solve this problem is to remove the waitqueue_active(), making the code look like this; if (wq) wake_up_interruptible(wq); This also fixes the problem because the spinlock in the wake_up*() acts as a memory barrier and prevents the code from being reordered by the CPU (and it also makes the resulting code is much simpler). --- Kosuke TATSUKAWA | 3rd IT Platform Department | IT Platform Division, NEC Corporation | tatsu@ab.jp.nec.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 06:29:44AM +0000, Kosuke Tatsukawa wrote: > Neil Brown wrote: > > Kosuke Tatsukawa <tatsu@ab.jp.nec.com> writes: > > > >> There are several places in net/sunrpc/svcsock.c which calls > >> waitqueue_active() without calling a memory barrier. Add a memory > >> barrier just as in wq_has_sleeper(). > >> > >> I found this issue when I was looking through the linux source code > >> for places calling waitqueue_active() before wake_up*(), but without > >> preceding memory barriers, after sending a patch to fix a similar > >> issue in drivers/tty/n_tty.c (Details about the original issue can be > >> found here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/9/28/849). > > > > hi, > > this feels like the wrong approach to the problem. It requires extra > > 'smb_mb's to be spread around which are hard to understand as easy to > > forget. > > > > A quick look seems to suggest that (nearly) every waitqueue_active() > > will need an smb_mb. Could we just put the smb_mb() inside > > waitqueue_active()?? > <snip> > > There are around 200 occurrences of waitqueue_active() in the kernel > source, and most of the places which use it before wake_up are either > protected by some spin lock, or already has a memory barrier or some > kind of atomic operation before it. > > Simply adding smp_mb() to waitqueue_active() would incur extra cost in > many cases and won't be a good idea. > > Another way to solve this problem is to remove the waitqueue_active(), > making the code look like this; > if (wq) > wake_up_interruptible(wq); > This also fixes the problem because the spinlock in the wake_up*() acts > as a memory barrier and prevents the code from being reordered by the > CPU (and it also makes the resulting code is much simpler). I might not care which we did, except I don't have the means to test this quickly, and I guess this is some of our most frequently called code. I suppose your patch is the most conservative approach, as the alternative is a spinlock/unlock in wake_up_interruptible, which I assume is necessarily more expensive than an smp_mb(). As far as I can tell it's been this way since forever. (Well, since a 2002 patch "NFSD: TCP: rationalise locking in RPC server routines" which removed some spinlocks from the data_ready routines.) I don't understand what the actual race is yet (which code exactly is missing the wakeup in this case? nfsd threads seem to instead get woken up by the wake_up_process() in svc_xprt_do_enqueue().) --b. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 5:18 PM, J. Bruce Fields <bfields@fieldses.org> wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 06:29:44AM +0000, Kosuke Tatsukawa wrote: > > Neil Brown wrote: > > > Kosuke Tatsukawa <tatsu@ab.jp.nec.com> writes: > > > > > >> There are several places in net/sunrpc/svcsock.c which calls > > >> waitqueue_active() without calling a memory barrier. Add a memory > > >> barrier just as in wq_has_sleeper(). > > >> > > >> I found this issue when I was looking through the linux source code > > >> for places calling waitqueue_active() before wake_up*(), but without > > >> preceding memory barriers, after sending a patch to fix a similar > > >> issue in drivers/tty/n_tty.c (Details about the original issue can be > > >> found here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/9/28/849). > > > > > > hi, > > > this feels like the wrong approach to the problem. It requires extra > > > 'smb_mb's to be spread around which are hard to understand as easy to > > > forget. > > > > > > A quick look seems to suggest that (nearly) every waitqueue_active() > > > will need an smb_mb. Could we just put the smb_mb() inside > > > waitqueue_active()?? > > <snip> > > > > There are around 200 occurrences of waitqueue_active() in the kernel > > source, and most of the places which use it before wake_up are either > > protected by some spin lock, or already has a memory barrier or some > > kind of atomic operation before it. > > > > Simply adding smp_mb() to waitqueue_active() would incur extra cost in > > many cases and won't be a good idea. > > > > Another way to solve this problem is to remove the waitqueue_active(), > > making the code look like this; > > if (wq) > > wake_up_interruptible(wq); > > This also fixes the problem because the spinlock in the wake_up*() acts > > as a memory barrier and prevents the code from being reordered by the > > CPU (and it also makes the resulting code is much simpler). > > I might not care which we did, except I don't have the means to test > this quickly, and I guess this is some of our most frequently called > code. > > I suppose your patch is the most conservative approach, as the > alternative is a spinlock/unlock in wake_up_interruptible, which I > assume is necessarily more expensive than an smp_mb(). > > As far as I can tell it's been this way since forever. (Well, since a > 2002 patch "NFSD: TCP: rationalise locking in RPC server routines" which > removed some spinlocks from the data_ready routines.) > > I don't understand what the actual race is yet (which code exactly is > missing the wakeup in this case? nfsd threads seem to instead get > woken up by the wake_up_process() in svc_xprt_do_enqueue().) > Those threads still use blocking calls for sendpage() and sendmsg(), so presumably they may be affected. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 06:29:44AM +0000, Kosuke Tatsukawa wrote: >> Neil Brown wrote: >> > Kosuke Tatsukawa <tatsu@ab.jp.nec.com> writes: >> > >> >> There are several places in net/sunrpc/svcsock.c which calls >> >> waitqueue_active() without calling a memory barrier. Add a memory >> >> barrier just as in wq_has_sleeper(). >> >> >> >> I found this issue when I was looking through the linux source code >> >> for places calling waitqueue_active() before wake_up*(), but without >> >> preceding memory barriers, after sending a patch to fix a similar >> >> issue in drivers/tty/n_tty.c (Details about the original issue can be >> >> found here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/9/28/849). >> > >> > hi, >> > this feels like the wrong approach to the problem. It requires extra >> > 'smb_mb's to be spread around which are hard to understand as easy to >> > forget. >> > >> > A quick look seems to suggest that (nearly) every waitqueue_active() >> > will need an smb_mb. Could we just put the smb_mb() inside >> > waitqueue_active()?? >> <snip> >> >> There are around 200 occurrences of waitqueue_active() in the kernel >> source, and most of the places which use it before wake_up are either >> protected by some spin lock, or already has a memory barrier or some >> kind of atomic operation before it. >> >> Simply adding smp_mb() to waitqueue_active() would incur extra cost in >> many cases and won't be a good idea. >> >> Another way to solve this problem is to remove the waitqueue_active(), >> making the code look like this; >> if (wq) >> wake_up_interruptible(wq); >> This also fixes the problem because the spinlock in the wake_up*() acts >> as a memory barrier and prevents the code from being reordered by the >> CPU (and it also makes the resulting code is much simpler). > > I might not care which we did, except I don't have the means to test > this quickly, and I guess this is some of our most frequently called > code. > > I suppose your patch is the most conservative approach, as the > alternative is a spinlock/unlock in wake_up_interruptible, which I > assume is necessarily more expensive than an smp_mb(). > > As far as I can tell it's been this way since forever. (Well, since a > 2002 patch "NFSD: TCP: rationalise locking in RPC server routines" which > removed some spinlocks from the data_ready routines.) > > I don't understand what the actual race is yet (which code exactly is > missing the wakeup in this case? nfsd threads seem to instead get > woken up by the wake_up_process() in svc_xprt_do_enqueue().) Thank you for the reply. I tried looking into this. The callbacks in net/sunrpc/svcsock.c are set up in svc_tcp_init() and svc_udp_init(), which are both called from svc_setup_socket(). svc_setup_socket() is called (indirectly) from lockd, nfsd, and nfsv4 callback port related code. Maybe I'm wrong, but there might not be any kernel code that is using the socket's wait queue in this case. Best regards. --- Kosuke TATSUKAWA | 3rd IT Platform Department | IT Platform Division, NEC Corporation | tatsu@ab.jp.nec.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 10:41:06AM +0000, Kosuke Tatsukawa wrote: > J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 06:29:44AM +0000, Kosuke Tatsukawa wrote: > >> Neil Brown wrote: > >> > Kosuke Tatsukawa <tatsu@ab.jp.nec.com> writes: > >> > > >> >> There are several places in net/sunrpc/svcsock.c which calls > >> >> waitqueue_active() without calling a memory barrier. Add a memory > >> >> barrier just as in wq_has_sleeper(). > >> >> > >> >> I found this issue when I was looking through the linux source code > >> >> for places calling waitqueue_active() before wake_up*(), but without > >> >> preceding memory barriers, after sending a patch to fix a similar > >> >> issue in drivers/tty/n_tty.c (Details about the original issue can be > >> >> found here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/9/28/849). > >> > > >> > hi, > >> > this feels like the wrong approach to the problem. It requires extra > >> > 'smb_mb's to be spread around which are hard to understand as easy to > >> > forget. > >> > > >> > A quick look seems to suggest that (nearly) every waitqueue_active() > >> > will need an smb_mb. Could we just put the smb_mb() inside > >> > waitqueue_active()?? > >> <snip> > >> > >> There are around 200 occurrences of waitqueue_active() in the kernel > >> source, and most of the places which use it before wake_up are either > >> protected by some spin lock, or already has a memory barrier or some > >> kind of atomic operation before it. > >> > >> Simply adding smp_mb() to waitqueue_active() would incur extra cost in > >> many cases and won't be a good idea. > >> > >> Another way to solve this problem is to remove the waitqueue_active(), > >> making the code look like this; > >> if (wq) > >> wake_up_interruptible(wq); > >> This also fixes the problem because the spinlock in the wake_up*() acts > >> as a memory barrier and prevents the code from being reordered by the > >> CPU (and it also makes the resulting code is much simpler). > > > > I might not care which we did, except I don't have the means to test > > this quickly, and I guess this is some of our most frequently called > > code. > > > > I suppose your patch is the most conservative approach, as the > > alternative is a spinlock/unlock in wake_up_interruptible, which I > > assume is necessarily more expensive than an smp_mb(). > > > > As far as I can tell it's been this way since forever. (Well, since a > > 2002 patch "NFSD: TCP: rationalise locking in RPC server routines" which > > removed some spinlocks from the data_ready routines.) > > > > I don't understand what the actual race is yet (which code exactly is > > missing the wakeup in this case? nfsd threads seem to instead get > > woken up by the wake_up_process() in svc_xprt_do_enqueue().) > > Thank you for the reply. I tried looking into this. > > The callbacks in net/sunrpc/svcsock.c are set up in svc_tcp_init() and > svc_udp_init(), which are both called from svc_setup_socket(). > svc_setup_socket() is called (indirectly) from lockd, nfsd, and nfsv4 > callback port related code. > > Maybe I'm wrong, but there might not be any kernel code that is using > the socket's wait queue in this case. As Trond points out there are probably waiters internal to the networking code. --b. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 10:41:06AM +0000, Kosuke Tatsukawa wrote: >> J. Bruce Fields wrote: >> > On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 06:29:44AM +0000, Kosuke Tatsukawa wrote: >> >> Neil Brown wrote: >> >> > Kosuke Tatsukawa <tatsu@ab.jp.nec.com> writes: >> >> > >> >> >> There are several places in net/sunrpc/svcsock.c which calls >> >> >> waitqueue_active() without calling a memory barrier. Add a memory >> >> >> barrier just as in wq_has_sleeper(). >> >> >> >> >> >> I found this issue when I was looking through the linux source code >> >> >> for places calling waitqueue_active() before wake_up*(), but without >> >> >> preceding memory barriers, after sending a patch to fix a similar >> >> >> issue in drivers/tty/n_tty.c (Details about the original issue can be >> >> >> found here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/9/28/849). >> >> > >> >> > hi, >> >> > this feels like the wrong approach to the problem. It requires extra >> >> > 'smb_mb's to be spread around which are hard to understand as easy to >> >> > forget. >> >> > >> >> > A quick look seems to suggest that (nearly) every waitqueue_active() >> >> > will need an smb_mb. Could we just put the smb_mb() inside >> >> > waitqueue_active()?? >> >> <snip> >> >> >> >> There are around 200 occurrences of waitqueue_active() in the kernel >> >> source, and most of the places which use it before wake_up are either >> >> protected by some spin lock, or already has a memory barrier or some >> >> kind of atomic operation before it. >> >> >> >> Simply adding smp_mb() to waitqueue_active() would incur extra cost in >> >> many cases and won't be a good idea. >> >> >> >> Another way to solve this problem is to remove the waitqueue_active(), >> >> making the code look like this; >> >> if (wq) >> >> wake_up_interruptible(wq); >> >> This also fixes the problem because the spinlock in the wake_up*() acts >> >> as a memory barrier and prevents the code from being reordered by the >> >> CPU (and it also makes the resulting code is much simpler). >> > >> > I might not care which we did, except I don't have the means to test >> > this quickly, and I guess this is some of our most frequently called >> > code. >> > >> > I suppose your patch is the most conservative approach, as the >> > alternative is a spinlock/unlock in wake_up_interruptible, which I >> > assume is necessarily more expensive than an smp_mb(). >> > >> > As far as I can tell it's been this way since forever. (Well, since a >> > 2002 patch "NFSD: TCP: rationalise locking in RPC server routines" which >> > removed some spinlocks from the data_ready routines.) >> > >> > I don't understand what the actual race is yet (which code exactly is >> > missing the wakeup in this case? nfsd threads seem to instead get >> > woken up by the wake_up_process() in svc_xprt_do_enqueue().) >> >> Thank you for the reply. I tried looking into this. >> >> The callbacks in net/sunrpc/svcsock.c are set up in svc_tcp_init() and >> svc_udp_init(), which are both called from svc_setup_socket(). >> svc_setup_socket() is called (indirectly) from lockd, nfsd, and nfsv4 >> callback port related code. >> >> Maybe I'm wrong, but there might not be any kernel code that is using >> the socket's wait queue in this case. > > As Trond points out there are probably waiters internal to the > networking code. Trond and Bruce, thank you for the comment. I was able to find the call to the wait function that was called from nfsd. sk_stream_wait_connect() and sk_stream_wait_memory() were called from either do_tcp_sendpages() or tcp_sendmsg() called from within svc_send(). sk_stream_wait_connect() shouldn't be called at this point, because the socket has already been used to receive the rpc request. On the wake_up side, sk_write_space() is called from the following locations. The relevant ones seems to be preceded by atomic_sub or a memory barrier. + ksocknal_write_space [drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/klnds/socklnd/socklnd_lib.c:633] + atm_pop_raw [net/atm/raw.c:40] + sock_setsockopt [net/core/sock.c:740] + sock_wfree [net/core/sock.c:1630] Preceded by atomic_sub in sock_wfree() + ccid3_hc_tx_packet_recv [net/dccp/ccids/ccid3.c:442] + do_tcp_sendpages [net/ipv4/tcp.c:1008] + tcp_sendmsg [net/ipv4/tcp.c:1300] + do_tcp_setsockopt [net/ipv4/tcp.c:2597] + tcp_new_space [net/ipv4/tcp_input.c:4885] Preceded by smp_mb__after_atomic in tcp_check_space() + llc_conn_state_process [net/llc/llc_conn.c:148] + pipe_rcv_status [net/phonet/pep.c:312] + pipe_do_rcv [net/phonet/pep.c:440] + pipe_start_flow_control [net/phonet/pep.c:554] + svc_sock_setbufsize [net/sunrpc/svcsock.c:45] sk_state_change() calls related to TCP/IP were called from the following places. + inet_shutdown [net/ipv4/af_inet.c:825] This shouldn't be called when waiting + tcp_done [net/ipv4/tcp.c:3078] spin_lock*/spin_unlock* is called in lock_timer_base + tcp_fin [net/ipv4/tcp_input.c:4031] atomic_long_sub is called from sk_memory_allocated_sub called within sk_mem_reclaim + tcp_finish_connect [net/ipv4/tcp_input.c:5415] This shoudn't be called when waiting + tcp_rcv_state_process [net/ipv4/tcp_input.c:5807,5880] The socket shouldn't be in TCP_SYN_RECV nor TCP_FIN_WAIT1 states when waiting I think the wait queue won't be used for being woken up by svc_{tcp,udp}_data_ready, because nfsd doesn't read from a socket. So with the current implementation, it seems there shouldn't be any problems even if the memory barrier is missing. --- Kosuke TATSUKAWA | 3rd IT Platform Department | IT Platform Division, NEC Corporation | tatsu@ab.jp.nec.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 03:57:13AM +0000, Kosuke Tatsukawa wrote: > J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 10:41:06AM +0000, Kosuke Tatsukawa wrote: > >> J. Bruce Fields wrote: > >> > On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 06:29:44AM +0000, Kosuke Tatsukawa wrote: > >> >> Neil Brown wrote: > >> >> > Kosuke Tatsukawa <tatsu@ab.jp.nec.com> writes: > >> >> > > >> >> >> There are several places in net/sunrpc/svcsock.c which calls > >> >> >> waitqueue_active() without calling a memory barrier. Add a memory > >> >> >> barrier just as in wq_has_sleeper(). > >> >> >> > >> >> >> I found this issue when I was looking through the linux source code > >> >> >> for places calling waitqueue_active() before wake_up*(), but without > >> >> >> preceding memory barriers, after sending a patch to fix a similar > >> >> >> issue in drivers/tty/n_tty.c (Details about the original issue can be > >> >> >> found here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/9/28/849). > >> >> > > >> >> > hi, > >> >> > this feels like the wrong approach to the problem. It requires extra > >> >> > 'smb_mb's to be spread around which are hard to understand as easy to > >> >> > forget. > >> >> > > >> >> > A quick look seems to suggest that (nearly) every waitqueue_active() > >> >> > will need an smb_mb. Could we just put the smb_mb() inside > >> >> > waitqueue_active()?? > >> >> <snip> > >> >> > >> >> There are around 200 occurrences of waitqueue_active() in the kernel > >> >> source, and most of the places which use it before wake_up are either > >> >> protected by some spin lock, or already has a memory barrier or some > >> >> kind of atomic operation before it. > >> >> > >> >> Simply adding smp_mb() to waitqueue_active() would incur extra cost in > >> >> many cases and won't be a good idea. > >> >> > >> >> Another way to solve this problem is to remove the waitqueue_active(), > >> >> making the code look like this; > >> >> if (wq) > >> >> wake_up_interruptible(wq); > >> >> This also fixes the problem because the spinlock in the wake_up*() acts > >> >> as a memory barrier and prevents the code from being reordered by the > >> >> CPU (and it also makes the resulting code is much simpler). > >> > > >> > I might not care which we did, except I don't have the means to test > >> > this quickly, and I guess this is some of our most frequently called > >> > code. > >> > > >> > I suppose your patch is the most conservative approach, as the > >> > alternative is a spinlock/unlock in wake_up_interruptible, which I > >> > assume is necessarily more expensive than an smp_mb(). > >> > > >> > As far as I can tell it's been this way since forever. (Well, since a > >> > 2002 patch "NFSD: TCP: rationalise locking in RPC server routines" which > >> > removed some spinlocks from the data_ready routines.) > >> > > >> > I don't understand what the actual race is yet (which code exactly is > >> > missing the wakeup in this case? nfsd threads seem to instead get > >> > woken up by the wake_up_process() in svc_xprt_do_enqueue().) > >> > >> Thank you for the reply. I tried looking into this. > >> > >> The callbacks in net/sunrpc/svcsock.c are set up in svc_tcp_init() and > >> svc_udp_init(), which are both called from svc_setup_socket(). > >> svc_setup_socket() is called (indirectly) from lockd, nfsd, and nfsv4 > >> callback port related code. > >> > >> Maybe I'm wrong, but there might not be any kernel code that is using > >> the socket's wait queue in this case. > > > > As Trond points out there are probably waiters internal to the > > networking code. > > Trond and Bruce, thank you for the comment. I was able to find the call > to the wait function that was called from nfsd. > > sk_stream_wait_connect() and sk_stream_wait_memory() were called from > either do_tcp_sendpages() or tcp_sendmsg() called from within > svc_send(). sk_stream_wait_connect() shouldn't be called at this point, > because the socket has already been used to receive the rpc request. > > On the wake_up side, sk_write_space() is called from the following > locations. The relevant ones seems to be preceded by atomic_sub or a > memory barrier. > + ksocknal_write_space [drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/klnds/socklnd/socklnd_lib.c:633] > + atm_pop_raw [net/atm/raw.c:40] > + sock_setsockopt [net/core/sock.c:740] > + sock_wfree [net/core/sock.c:1630] > Preceded by atomic_sub in sock_wfree() > + ccid3_hc_tx_packet_recv [net/dccp/ccids/ccid3.c:442] > + do_tcp_sendpages [net/ipv4/tcp.c:1008] > + tcp_sendmsg [net/ipv4/tcp.c:1300] > + do_tcp_setsockopt [net/ipv4/tcp.c:2597] > + tcp_new_space [net/ipv4/tcp_input.c:4885] > Preceded by smp_mb__after_atomic in tcp_check_space() > + llc_conn_state_process [net/llc/llc_conn.c:148] > + pipe_rcv_status [net/phonet/pep.c:312] > + pipe_do_rcv [net/phonet/pep.c:440] > + pipe_start_flow_control [net/phonet/pep.c:554] > + svc_sock_setbufsize [net/sunrpc/svcsock.c:45] > > sk_state_change() calls related to TCP/IP were called from the following > places. > + inet_shutdown [net/ipv4/af_inet.c:825] > This shouldn't be called when waiting > + tcp_done [net/ipv4/tcp.c:3078] > spin_lock*/spin_unlock* is called in lock_timer_base > + tcp_fin [net/ipv4/tcp_input.c:4031] > atomic_long_sub is called from sk_memory_allocated_sub called within > sk_mem_reclaim > + tcp_finish_connect [net/ipv4/tcp_input.c:5415] > This shoudn't be called when waiting > + tcp_rcv_state_process [net/ipv4/tcp_input.c:5807,5880] > The socket shouldn't be in TCP_SYN_RECV nor TCP_FIN_WAIT1 states when > waiting > > I think the wait queue won't be used for being woken up by > svc_{tcp,udp}_data_ready, because nfsd doesn't read from a socket. Looking, well, I guess kernel_recvmsg() does read from a socket, but I assume calling with MSG_DONTWAIT means that it doesn't block. > So with the current implementation, it seems there shouldn't be any > problems even if the memory barrier is missing. Thanks for the detailed investigation. I think it would be worth adding a comment if that might help someone having to reinvestigate this again some day. --b. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 03:57:13AM +0000, Kosuke Tatsukawa wrote: >> J. Bruce Fields wrote: >> > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 10:41:06AM +0000, Kosuke Tatsukawa wrote: >> >> J. Bruce Fields wrote: >> >> > On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 06:29:44AM +0000, Kosuke Tatsukawa wrote: >> >> >> Neil Brown wrote: >> >> >> > Kosuke Tatsukawa <tatsu@ab.jp.nec.com> writes: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> There are several places in net/sunrpc/svcsock.c which calls >> >> >> >> waitqueue_active() without calling a memory barrier. Add a memory >> >> >> >> barrier just as in wq_has_sleeper(). >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I found this issue when I was looking through the linux source code >> >> >> >> for places calling waitqueue_active() before wake_up*(), but without >> >> >> >> preceding memory barriers, after sending a patch to fix a similar >> >> >> >> issue in drivers/tty/n_tty.c (Details about the original issue can be >> >> >> >> found here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/9/28/849). >> >> >> > >> >> >> > hi, >> >> >> > this feels like the wrong approach to the problem. It requires extra >> >> >> > 'smb_mb's to be spread around which are hard to understand as easy to >> >> >> > forget. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > A quick look seems to suggest that (nearly) every waitqueue_active() >> >> >> > will need an smb_mb. Could we just put the smb_mb() inside >> >> >> > waitqueue_active()?? >> >> >> <snip> >> >> >> >> >> >> There are around 200 occurrences of waitqueue_active() in the kernel >> >> >> source, and most of the places which use it before wake_up are either >> >> >> protected by some spin lock, or already has a memory barrier or some >> >> >> kind of atomic operation before it. >> >> >> >> >> >> Simply adding smp_mb() to waitqueue_active() would incur extra cost in >> >> >> many cases and won't be a good idea. >> >> >> >> >> >> Another way to solve this problem is to remove the waitqueue_active(), >> >> >> making the code look like this; >> >> >> if (wq) >> >> >> wake_up_interruptible(wq); >> >> >> This also fixes the problem because the spinlock in the wake_up*() acts >> >> >> as a memory barrier and prevents the code from being reordered by the >> >> >> CPU (and it also makes the resulting code is much simpler). >> >> > >> >> > I might not care which we did, except I don't have the means to test >> >> > this quickly, and I guess this is some of our most frequently called >> >> > code. >> >> > >> >> > I suppose your patch is the most conservative approach, as the >> >> > alternative is a spinlock/unlock in wake_up_interruptible, which I >> >> > assume is necessarily more expensive than an smp_mb(). >> >> > >> >> > As far as I can tell it's been this way since forever. (Well, since a >> >> > 2002 patch "NFSD: TCP: rationalise locking in RPC server routines" which >> >> > removed some spinlocks from the data_ready routines.) >> >> > >> >> > I don't understand what the actual race is yet (which code exactly is >> >> > missing the wakeup in this case? nfsd threads seem to instead get >> >> > woken up by the wake_up_process() in svc_xprt_do_enqueue().) >> >> >> >> Thank you for the reply. I tried looking into this. >> >> >> >> The callbacks in net/sunrpc/svcsock.c are set up in svc_tcp_init() and >> >> svc_udp_init(), which are both called from svc_setup_socket(). >> >> svc_setup_socket() is called (indirectly) from lockd, nfsd, and nfsv4 >> >> callback port related code. >> >> >> >> Maybe I'm wrong, but there might not be any kernel code that is using >> >> the socket's wait queue in this case. >> > >> > As Trond points out there are probably waiters internal to the >> > networking code. >> >> Trond and Bruce, thank you for the comment. I was able to find the call >> to the wait function that was called from nfsd. >> >> sk_stream_wait_connect() and sk_stream_wait_memory() were called from >> either do_tcp_sendpages() or tcp_sendmsg() called from within >> svc_send(). sk_stream_wait_connect() shouldn't be called at this point, >> because the socket has already been used to receive the rpc request. >> >> On the wake_up side, sk_write_space() is called from the following >> locations. The relevant ones seems to be preceded by atomic_sub or a >> memory barrier. >> + ksocknal_write_space [drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/klnds/socklnd/socklnd_lib.c:633] >> + atm_pop_raw [net/atm/raw.c:40] >> + sock_setsockopt [net/core/sock.c:740] >> + sock_wfree [net/core/sock.c:1630] >> Preceded by atomic_sub in sock_wfree() >> + ccid3_hc_tx_packet_recv [net/dccp/ccids/ccid3.c:442] >> + do_tcp_sendpages [net/ipv4/tcp.c:1008] >> + tcp_sendmsg [net/ipv4/tcp.c:1300] >> + do_tcp_setsockopt [net/ipv4/tcp.c:2597] >> + tcp_new_space [net/ipv4/tcp_input.c:4885] >> Preceded by smp_mb__after_atomic in tcp_check_space() >> + llc_conn_state_process [net/llc/llc_conn.c:148] >> + pipe_rcv_status [net/phonet/pep.c:312] >> + pipe_do_rcv [net/phonet/pep.c:440] >> + pipe_start_flow_control [net/phonet/pep.c:554] >> + svc_sock_setbufsize [net/sunrpc/svcsock.c:45] >> >> sk_state_change() calls related to TCP/IP were called from the following >> places. >> + inet_shutdown [net/ipv4/af_inet.c:825] >> This shouldn't be called when waiting >> + tcp_done [net/ipv4/tcp.c:3078] >> spin_lock*/spin_unlock* is called in lock_timer_base >> + tcp_fin [net/ipv4/tcp_input.c:4031] >> atomic_long_sub is called from sk_memory_allocated_sub called within >> sk_mem_reclaim >> + tcp_finish_connect [net/ipv4/tcp_input.c:5415] >> This shoudn't be called when waiting >> + tcp_rcv_state_process [net/ipv4/tcp_input.c:5807,5880] >> The socket shouldn't be in TCP_SYN_RECV nor TCP_FIN_WAIT1 states when >> waiting >> >> I think the wait queue won't be used for being woken up by >> svc_{tcp,udp}_data_ready, because nfsd doesn't read from a socket. > > Looking, well, I guess kernel_recvmsg() does read from a socket, but I > assume calling with MSG_DONTWAIT means that it doesn't block. > >> So with the current implementation, it seems there shouldn't be any >> problems even if the memory barrier is missing. > > Thanks for the detailed investigation. > > I think it would be worth adding a comment if that might help someone > having to reinvestigate this again some day. It would be nice, but I find it difficult to write a comment in the sunrpc layer why a memory barrier isn't necessary, using the knowledge of how nfsd uses it, and the current implementation of the network code. Personally, I would prefer removing the call to waitqueue_active() which would make the memory barrier totally unnecessary at the cost of a spin_lock + spin_unlock by unconditionally calling wake_up_interruptible. --- Kosuke TATSUKAWA | 3rd IT Platform Department | IT Platform Division, NEC Corporation | tatsu@ab.jp.nec.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Tatsukawa Kosuke wrote: > J. Bruce Fields wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 03:57:13AM +0000, Kosuke Tatsukawa wrote: >>> J. Bruce Fields wrote: >>> > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 10:41:06AM +0000, Kosuke Tatsukawa wrote: >>> >> J. Bruce Fields wrote: >>> >> > On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 06:29:44AM +0000, Kosuke Tatsukawa wrote: >>> >> >> Neil Brown wrote: >>> >> >> > Kosuke Tatsukawa <tatsu@ab.jp.nec.com> writes: >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> There are several places in net/sunrpc/svcsock.c which calls >>> >> >> >> waitqueue_active() without calling a memory barrier. Add a memory >>> >> >> >> barrier just as in wq_has_sleeper(). >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> I found this issue when I was looking through the linux source code >>> >> >> >> for places calling waitqueue_active() before wake_up*(), but without >>> >> >> >> preceding memory barriers, after sending a patch to fix a similar >>> >> >> >> issue in drivers/tty/n_tty.c (Details about the original issue can be >>> >> >> >> found here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/9/28/849). >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > hi, >>> >> >> > this feels like the wrong approach to the problem. It requires extra >>> >> >> > 'smb_mb's to be spread around which are hard to understand as easy to >>> >> >> > forget. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > A quick look seems to suggest that (nearly) every waitqueue_active() >>> >> >> > will need an smb_mb. Could we just put the smb_mb() inside >>> >> >> > waitqueue_active()?? >>> >> >> <snip> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> There are around 200 occurrences of waitqueue_active() in the kernel >>> >> >> source, and most of the places which use it before wake_up are either >>> >> >> protected by some spin lock, or already has a memory barrier or some >>> >> >> kind of atomic operation before it. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Simply adding smp_mb() to waitqueue_active() would incur extra cost in >>> >> >> many cases and won't be a good idea. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Another way to solve this problem is to remove the waitqueue_active(), >>> >> >> making the code look like this; >>> >> >> if (wq) >>> >> >> wake_up_interruptible(wq); >>> >> >> This also fixes the problem because the spinlock in the wake_up*() acts >>> >> >> as a memory barrier and prevents the code from being reordered by the >>> >> >> CPU (and it also makes the resulting code is much simpler). >>> >> > >>> >> > I might not care which we did, except I don't have the means to test >>> >> > this quickly, and I guess this is some of our most frequently called >>> >> > code. >>> >> > >>> >> > I suppose your patch is the most conservative approach, as the >>> >> > alternative is a spinlock/unlock in wake_up_interruptible, which I >>> >> > assume is necessarily more expensive than an smp_mb(). >>> >> > >>> >> > As far as I can tell it's been this way since forever. (Well, since a >>> >> > 2002 patch "NFSD: TCP: rationalise locking in RPC server routines" which >>> >> > removed some spinlocks from the data_ready routines.) >>> >> > >>> >> > I don't understand what the actual race is yet (which code exactly is >>> >> > missing the wakeup in this case? nfsd threads seem to instead get >>> >> > woken up by the wake_up_process() in svc_xprt_do_enqueue().) >>> >> >>> >> Thank you for the reply. I tried looking into this. >>> >> >>> >> The callbacks in net/sunrpc/svcsock.c are set up in svc_tcp_init() and >>> >> svc_udp_init(), which are both called from svc_setup_socket(). >>> >> svc_setup_socket() is called (indirectly) from lockd, nfsd, and nfsv4 >>> >> callback port related code. >>> >> >>> >> Maybe I'm wrong, but there might not be any kernel code that is using >>> >> the socket's wait queue in this case. >>> > >>> > As Trond points out there are probably waiters internal to the >>> > networking code. >>> >>> Trond and Bruce, thank you for the comment. I was able to find the call >>> to the wait function that was called from nfsd. >>> >>> sk_stream_wait_connect() and sk_stream_wait_memory() were called from >>> either do_tcp_sendpages() or tcp_sendmsg() called from within >>> svc_send(). sk_stream_wait_connect() shouldn't be called at this point, >>> because the socket has already been used to receive the rpc request. >>> >>> On the wake_up side, sk_write_space() is called from the following >>> locations. The relevant ones seems to be preceded by atomic_sub or a >>> memory barrier. >>> + ksocknal_write_space [drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/klnds/socklnd/socklnd_lib.c:633] >>> + atm_pop_raw [net/atm/raw.c:40] >>> + sock_setsockopt [net/core/sock.c:740] >>> + sock_wfree [net/core/sock.c:1630] >>> Preceded by atomic_sub in sock_wfree() >>> + ccid3_hc_tx_packet_recv [net/dccp/ccids/ccid3.c:442] >>> + do_tcp_sendpages [net/ipv4/tcp.c:1008] >>> + tcp_sendmsg [net/ipv4/tcp.c:1300] >>> + do_tcp_setsockopt [net/ipv4/tcp.c:2597] >>> + tcp_new_space [net/ipv4/tcp_input.c:4885] >>> Preceded by smp_mb__after_atomic in tcp_check_space() >>> + llc_conn_state_process [net/llc/llc_conn.c:148] >>> + pipe_rcv_status [net/phonet/pep.c:312] >>> + pipe_do_rcv [net/phonet/pep.c:440] >>> + pipe_start_flow_control [net/phonet/pep.c:554] >>> + svc_sock_setbufsize [net/sunrpc/svcsock.c:45] >>> >>> sk_state_change() calls related to TCP/IP were called from the following >>> places. >>> + inet_shutdown [net/ipv4/af_inet.c:825] >>> This shouldn't be called when waiting >>> + tcp_done [net/ipv4/tcp.c:3078] >>> spin_lock*/spin_unlock* is called in lock_timer_base >>> + tcp_fin [net/ipv4/tcp_input.c:4031] >>> atomic_long_sub is called from sk_memory_allocated_sub called within >>> sk_mem_reclaim >>> + tcp_finish_connect [net/ipv4/tcp_input.c:5415] >>> This shoudn't be called when waiting >>> + tcp_rcv_state_process [net/ipv4/tcp_input.c:5807,5880] >>> The socket shouldn't be in TCP_SYN_RECV nor TCP_FIN_WAIT1 states when >>> waiting >>> >>> I think the wait queue won't be used for being woken up by >>> svc_{tcp,udp}_data_ready, because nfsd doesn't read from a socket. >> >> Looking, well, I guess kernel_recvmsg() does read from a socket, but I >> assume calling with MSG_DONTWAIT means that it doesn't block. >> >>> So with the current implementation, it seems there shouldn't be any >>> problems even if the memory barrier is missing. >> >> Thanks for the detailed investigation. >> >> I think it would be worth adding a comment if that might help someone >> having to reinvestigate this again some day. > > It would be nice, but I find it difficult to write a comment in the > sunrpc layer why a memory barrier isn't necessary, using the knowledge > of how nfsd uses it, and the current implementation of the network code. > > Personally, I would prefer removing the call to waitqueue_active() which > would make the memory barrier totally unnecessary at the cost of a > spin_lock + spin_unlock by unconditionally calling > wake_up_interruptible. On second thought, the callbacks will be called frequently from the tcp code, so it wouldn't be a good idea. --- Kosuke TATSUKAWA | 3rd IT Platform Department | IT Platform Division, NEC Corporation | tatsu@ab.jp.nec.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c b/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c index 0c81202..ec19444 100644 --- a/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c +++ b/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c @@ -414,6 +414,7 @@ static void svc_udp_data_ready(struct sock *sk) set_bit(XPT_DATA, &svsk->sk_xprt.xpt_flags); svc_xprt_enqueue(&svsk->sk_xprt); } + smp_mb(); if (wq && waitqueue_active(wq)) wake_up_interruptible(wq); } @@ -432,6 +433,7 @@ static void svc_write_space(struct sock *sk) svc_xprt_enqueue(&svsk->sk_xprt); } + smp_mb(); if (wq && waitqueue_active(wq)) { dprintk("RPC svc_write_space: someone sleeping on %p\n", svsk); @@ -787,6 +789,7 @@ static void svc_tcp_listen_data_ready(struct sock *sk) } wq = sk_sleep(sk); + smp_mb(); if (wq && waitqueue_active(wq)) wake_up_interruptible_all(wq); } @@ -808,6 +811,7 @@ static void svc_tcp_state_change(struct sock *sk) set_bit(XPT_CLOSE, &svsk->sk_xprt.xpt_flags); svc_xprt_enqueue(&svsk->sk_xprt); } + smp_mb(); if (wq && waitqueue_active(wq)) wake_up_interruptible_all(wq); } @@ -823,6 +827,7 @@ static void svc_tcp_data_ready(struct sock *sk) set_bit(XPT_DATA, &svsk->sk_xprt.xpt_flags); svc_xprt_enqueue(&svsk->sk_xprt); } + smp_mb(); if (wq && waitqueue_active(wq)) wake_up_interruptible(wq); } @@ -1594,6 +1599,7 @@ static void svc_sock_detach(struct svc_xprt *xprt) sk->sk_write_space = svsk->sk_owspace; wq = sk_sleep(sk); + smp_mb(); if (wq && waitqueue_active(wq)) wake_up_interruptible(wq); }
There are several places in net/sunrpc/svcsock.c which calls waitqueue_active() without calling a memory barrier. Add a memory barrier just as in wq_has_sleeper(). I found this issue when I was looking through the linux source code for places calling waitqueue_active() before wake_up*(), but without preceding memory barriers, after sending a patch to fix a similar issue in drivers/tty/n_tty.c (Details about the original issue can be found here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/9/28/849). Signed-off-by: Kosuke Tatsukawa <tatsu@ab.jp.nec.com> --- v2: - Fixed compiler warnings caused by type mismatch v1: - https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/10/8/993 --- net/sunrpc/svcsock.c | 6 ++++++ 1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)