Thread (9 messages) flat view 9 messages, 4 authors, 2017-12-12

Re: [PATCH] ptr_ring: add barriers

From: Jason Wang <hidden>
Date: 2017-12-06 02:31:51
Also in: lkml


On 2017年12月06日 03:29, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
Users of ptr_ring expect that it's safe to give the
data structure a pointer and have it be available
to consumers, but that actually requires an smb_wmb
or a stronger barrier.

In absence of such barriers and on architectures that reorder writes,
consumer might read an un=initialized value from an skb pointer stored
in the skb array.  This was observed causing crashes.

To fix, add memory barriers.  The barrier we use is a wmb, the
assumption being that producers do not need to read the value so we do
not need to order these reads.

Reported-by: George Cherian <redacted>
Suggested-by: Jason Wang <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
---

George, could you pls report whether this patch fixes
the issue for you?

This seems to be needed in stable as well.




  include/linux/ptr_ring.h | 9 +++++++++
  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
diff --git a/include/linux/ptr_ring.h b/include/linux/ptr_ring.h
index 37b4bb2..6866df4 100644
--- a/include/linux/ptr_ring.h
+++ b/include/linux/ptr_ring.h
@@ -101,12 +101,18 @@ static inline bool ptr_ring_full_bh(struct ptr_ring *r)
  
  /* Note: callers invoking this in a loop must use a compiler barrier,
   * for example cpu_relax(). Callers must hold producer_lock.
+ * Callers are responsible for making sure pointer that is being queued
+ * points to a valid data.
   */
  static inline int __ptr_ring_produce(struct ptr_ring *r, void *ptr)
  {
  	if (unlikely(!r->size) || r->queue[r->producer])
  		return -ENOSPC;
  
+	/* Make sure the pointer we are storing points to a valid data. */
+	/* Pairs with smp_read_barrier_depends in __ptr_ring_consume. */
+	smp_wmb();
+
  	r->queue[r->producer++] = ptr;
  	if (unlikely(r->producer >= r->size))
  		r->producer = 0;
@@ -275,6 +281,9 @@ static inline void *__ptr_ring_consume(struct ptr_ring *r)
  	if (ptr)
  		__ptr_ring_discard_one(r);
  
+	/* Make sure anyone accessing data through the pointer is up to date. */
+	/* Pairs with smp_wmb in __ptr_ring_produce. */
+	smp_read_barrier_depends();
  	return ptr;
  }
  
I was thinking whether or not it's better to move those to the callers. 
Then we can save lots of barriers in e.g batch consuming.

Thanks
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help