On 05/04/2019 06:06 PM, Björn Töpel wrote:
> From: Björn Töpel <bjorn.to...@intel.com>
>
> When an AF_XDP socket is released/closed the XSKMAP still holds a
> reference to the socket in a "released" state. The socket will still
> use the netdev queue resource, and block newly created sockets from
> attaching to that queue, but no user application can access the
> fill/complete/rx/tx rings. This results in that all applications need
> to explicitly clear the map entry from the old "zombie state"
> socket. This should be done automatically.
>
> After this patch, when a socket is released, it will remove itself
> from all the XSKMAPs it resides in, allowing the socket application to
> remove the code that cleans the XSKMAP entry.
>
> This behavior is also closer to that of SOCKMAP, making the two socket
> maps more consistent.
>
> Reported-by: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richard...@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Björn Töpel <bjorn.to...@intel.com>
[...]
> +static void __xsk_map_delete_elem(struct xsk_map *map,
> + struct xdp_sock **map_entry)
> +{
> + struct xdp_sock *old_xs;
> +
> + spin_lock_bh(&map->lock);
> + old_xs = xchg(map_entry, NULL);
> + if (old_xs)
> + xsk_map_del_node(old_xs, map_entry);
> + spin_unlock_bh(&map->lock);
> +
> +}
> +
> static void xsk_map_free(struct bpf_map *map)
> {
> struct xsk_map *m = container_of(map, struct xsk_map, map);
> @@ -78,15 +142,16 @@ static void xsk_map_free(struct bpf_map *map)
> bpf_clear_redirect_map(map);
> synchronize_net();
>
> + spin_lock_bh(&m->lock);
> for (i = 0; i < map->max_entries; i++) {
> + struct xdp_sock **entry = &m->xsk_map[i];
> struct xdp_sock *xs;
>
> - xs = m->xsk_map[i];
> - if (!xs)
> - continue;
> -
> - sock_put((struct sock *)xs);
> + xs = xchg(entry, NULL);
> + if (xs)
> + __xsk_map_delete_elem(m, entry);
> }
> + spin_unlock_bh(&m->lock);
>
Was this tested? Doesn't the above straight run into a deadlock?
>From xsk_map_free() you iterate over the map with m->lock held. Once you
xchg'ed the entry and call into __xsk_map_delete_elem(), you attempt to
call map->lock on the same map once again. What am I missing?
Thanks,
Daniel
