On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 1:46 AM Vlad Buslov <vla...@mellanox.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon 18 Feb 2019 at 19:08, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 11:47 PM Vlad Buslov <vla...@mellanox.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Flower classifier only changes root pointer during init and destroy. Cls
> >> API implements reference counting for tcf_proto, so there is no danger of
> >> concurrent access to tp when it is being destroyed, even without protection
> >> provided by rtnl lock.
> >
> > How about atomicity? Refcnt doesn't guarantee atomicity, how do
> > you make sure two concurrent modifications are atomic?
>
> In order to guarantee atomicity I lock shared flower classifier data
> structures with tp->lock in following patches.
Sure, I meant the atomicity of the _whole_ change, as you know
the TC filters are stored in hierarchical structures: a block, a chain,
a tp struct, some type-specific data structure like a hash table.
Locking tp only solves a partial of the atomicity here. Are you
going to restart the whole change from top down to the bottom?
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Implement new function fl_head_dereference() to dereference tp->root
> >> without checking for rtnl lock. Use it in all flower function that obtain
> >> head pointer instead of rtnl_dereference().
> >>
> >
> > So what lock protects RCU writers after this patch?
>
> I explained it in comment for fl_head_dereference(), but should have
> copied this information to changelog as well:
> Flower classifier only changes root pointer during init and destroy.
> Cls API implements reference counting for tcf_proto, so there is no
> danger of concurrent access to tp when it is being destroyed, even
> without protection provided by rtnl lock.
So you are saying an RCU pointer is okay to deference without
any lock eve without RCU read lock, right?
>
> In initial version of this change I used tp->lock to protect tp->root
> access and verified it with lockdep, but during internal review Jiri
> noted that this is not needed in current flower implementation.
Let's see what you have on top of your own branch
unlocked_flower_cong_1:
1458 static int fl_change(struct net *net, struct sk_buff *in_skb,
1459 struct tcf_proto *tp, unsigned long base,
1460 u32 handle, struct nlattr **tca,
1461 void **arg, bool ovr, bool rtnl_held,
1462 struct netlink_ext_ack *extack)
1463 {
1464 struct cls_fl_head *head = fl_head_dereference(tp);
At the point of line 1464, there is no lock taken, tp->lock is taken
after it, block->lock or chain lock is already unlocked before ->change().
So, what protects this RCU structure? According to RCU, it must be
either RCU read lock or some writer lock. I see none here. :(
What am I missing?
