On Fri, 2017-10-06 at 09:34 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 05:10:09PM +0200, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Fri, 2017-10-06 at 06:34 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 02:57:45PM +0200, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> > > > The networking subsystem is currently using some kind of long-lived
> > > > RCU-protected, references to avoid the overhead of full book-keeping.
> > > >
> > > > Such references - skb_dst() noref - are stored inside the skbs and can
> > > > be
> > > > moved across relevant slices of the network stack, with the users
> > > > being in charge of properly clearing the relevant skb - or properly
> > > > refcount
> > > > the related dst references - before the skb escapes the RCU section.
> > > >
> > > > We currently don't have any deterministic debug infrastructure to check
> > > > the dst noref usages - and the introduction of others noref artifact is
> > > > currently under discussion.
> > > >
> > > > This series tries to tackle the above introducing an RCU debug
> > > > infrastructure
> > > > aimed at spotting incorrect noref pointer usage, in patch one. The
> > > > infrastructure is small and must be explicitly enabled via a newly
> > > > introduced
> > > > build option.
> > > >
> > > > Patch two uses such infrastructure to track dst noref usage in the
> > > > networking
> > > > stack.
> > > >
> > > > Patch 3 and 4 are bugfixes for small buglet found running this
> > > > infrastructure
> > > > on basic scenarios.
> >
> > Thank you for the prompt reply!
> > >
> > > This patchset does not look like it handles rcu_read_lock() nesting.
> > > For example, given code like this:
> > >
> > > void foo(void)
> > > {
> > > rcu_read_lock();
> > > rcu_track_noref(&key2, &noref2, true);
> > > do_something();
> > > rcu_track_noref(&key2, &noref2, false);
> > > rcu_read_unlock();
> > > }
> > >
> > > void bar(void)
> > > {
> > > rcu_read_lock();
> > > rcu_track_noref(&key1, &noref1, true);
> > > do_something_more();
> > > foo();
> > > do_something_else();
> > > rcu_track_noref(&key1, &noref1, false);
> > > rcu_read_unlock();
> > > }
> > >
> > > void grill(void)
> > > {
> > > foo();
> > > }
> > >
> > > It looks like foo()'s rcu_read_unlock() will complain about key1.
> > > You could remove foo()'s rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock(), but
> > > that will break the call from grill().
> >
> > Actually the code should cope correctly with your example; when foo()'s
> > rcu_read_unlock() is called, 'cache' contains:
> >
> > { { &key1, &noref1, 1}, // ...
> >
> > and when the related __rcu_check_noref() is invoked preempt_count() is
> > 2 - because the check is called before decreasing the preempt counter.
> >
> > In the main loop inside __rcu_check_noref() we will hit always the
> > 'continue' statement because 'cache->store[i].nesting != nesting', so
> > no warn will be triggered.
>
> You are right, it was too early, and my example wasn't correct. How
> about this one?
>
> void foo(void (*f)(struct s *sp), struct s **spp)
> {
> rcu_read_lock();
> rcu_track_noref(&key2, &noref2, true);
> f(spp);
> rcu_track_noref(&key2, &noref2, false);
> rcu_read_unlock();
> }
>
> void barcb(struct s **spp)
> {
> *spp = &noref3;
> rcu_track_noref(&key3, *spp, true);
> }
>
> void bar(void)
> {
> struct s *sp;
>
> rcu_read_lock();
> rcu_track_noref(&key1, &noref1, true);
> do_something_more();
> foo(barcb, &sp);
> do_something_else(sp);
> rcu_track_noref(&key3, sp, false);
> rcu_track_noref(&key1, &noref1, false);
> rcu_read_unlock();
> }
>
> void grillcb(struct s **spp)
> {
> *spp
> }
>
> void grill(void)
> {
> foo();
> }
You are right: this will generate a splat, even if the code it safe.
The false positive can be avoided looking for leaked references only in
the outermost rcu unlook. I did a previous implementation performing
such check, but it emitted very generic splat so I tried to be more
strict. The latter choice allowed to find/do 3/4.
What about using save_stack_trace() in rcu_track_noref(, true) and
reporting such stack trace when the check in the outer most rcu fails?
the current strict/false-postive-prone check could be enabled under an
additional build flag.
> How does the user select the key argument? It looks like someone
> can choose to just pass in NULL -- is that the intent, or am I confused
> about this as well?
The 'key' argument is intented to discriminate the scope of the same
noref dst attached to different skbs, which happens e.g. as a result of
as skb_dst_copy().
In a generic use case, it can be NULL, too.
> I am also concerned about false negatives when the user invokes
> rcu_track_noref(..., false) but then leaks the pointer anyway. Or is
> there something you are doing that catches this that I am missing?
If the rcu_track_noref(..., false) is misplaced or missing, yes we can
have false negative.
In the noref rcu use-case the rcu_track_noref(, false) call is/must be
placed side-by-side with the code clearing the the noref pointer, so
is/should be quite easy avoiding such mistakes.
Cheers,
Paolo
