Thread (3 messages) read the whole thread 3 messages, 3 authors, 2012-08-23

Re: [PATCH net-next] packet: Protect packet sk list with mutex (v2)

From: Eric Dumazet <hidden>
Date: 2012-08-22 06:59:22

On Tue, 2012-08-21 at 15:06 +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
Change since v1:

* Fixed inuse counters access spotted by Eric

In patch eea68e2f (packet: Report socket mclist info via diag module) I've
introduced a "scheduling in atomic" problem in packet diag module -- the
socket list is traversed under rcu_read_lock() while performed under it sk
mclist access requires rtnl lock (i.e. -- mutex) to be taken.

[152363.820563] BUG: scheduling while atomic: crtools/12517/0x10000002
[152363.820573] 4 locks held by crtools/12517:
[152363.820581]  #0:  (sock_diag_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff81a2dcb5>] sock_diag_rcv+0x1f/0x3e
[152363.820613]  #1:  (sock_diag_table_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff81a2de70>] sock_diag_rcv_msg+0xdb/0x11a
[152363.820644]  #2:  (nlk->cb_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff81a67d01>] netlink_dump+0x23/0x1ab
[152363.820693]  #3:  (rcu_read_lock){.+.+..}, at: [<ffffffff81b6a049>] packet_diag_dump+0x0/0x1af

Similar thing was then re-introduced by further packet diag patches (fanount 
mutex and pgvec mutex for rings) :(

Apart from being terribly sorry for the above, I propose to change the packet
sk list protection from spinlock to mutex. This lock currently protects two
modifications:

* sklist
* prot inuse counters

The sklist modifications can be just reprotected with mutex since they already
occur in a sleeping context. The inuse counters modifications are trickier -- the
__this_cpu_-s are used inside, thus requiring the caller to handle the potential
issues with contexts himself. Since packet sockets' counters are modified in two 
places only (packet_create and packet_release) we only need to protect the context 
from being preempted. BH disabling is not required in this case.

Signed-off-by: Pavel Emelyanov <redacted>

---
diff --git a/include/net/netns/packet.h b/include/net/netns/packet.h
index cb4e894..4780b08 100644
--- a/include/net/netns/packet.h
+++ b/include/net/netns/packet.h
@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@
 #include <linux/spinlock.h>
 
 struct netns_packet {
-	spinlock_t		sklist_lock;
+	struct mutex		sklist_lock;
 	struct hlist_head	sklist;
 };
 
diff --git a/net/packet/af_packet.c b/net/packet/af_packet.c
index 226b2cd..79bc69c 100644
--- a/net/packet/af_packet.c
+++ b/net/packet/af_packet.c
@@ -2308,10 +2308,13 @@ static int packet_release(struct socket *sock)
 	net = sock_net(sk);
 	po = pkt_sk(sk);
 
-	spin_lock_bh(&net->packet.sklist_lock);
+	mutex_lock(&net->packet.sklist_lock);
 	sk_del_node_init_rcu(sk);
+	mutex_unlock(&net->packet.sklist_lock);
I am still a bit uncomfortable : are we allowed to sleep in a release()
handler ?

It seems yes, so :

Acked-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help