Re: [RFC PATCH net] net: dsa: tag_dsa: fix suspicious rcu_dereference_check() with br_vlan_get_pvid_rcu

On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 10:53:33AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:

On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 02:37:08AM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:

quoted

__dev_queue_xmit(), which is our caller, does run under rcu_read_lock_bh(),
but in my foolishness I had thought this would be enough to make the
access, lockdep complains that rcu_read_lock() is not held.

Depending on exactly which primitive is complaining, you can inform
lockdep of your intentions.  For example, you can change
rcu_dereference(p) to rcu_dereference_bh(p).  Or you can change:

	list_for_each_entry_rcu(p, &lh, field) {
		...

To:

	list_for_each_entry_rcu(p, &lh, field, rcu_read_lock_bh_held()) {
		...

And hlist_for_each_entry_rcu() can also take that same optional
lockdep parameter.

This is covered by my first option below, basically I don't want to
bloat the Ethernet bridge driver too much with a single user, and that
user being outside the bridge code itself, at that. I'm sure Nikolay and
Roopa would agree :)

The bridge xmit function - br_dev_xmit - takes the rcu_preempt
rcu_read_lock() too. Although I don't think it is very high-overhead in
any incarnation, I think it would be seen as a positive improvement if
it could be removed from that path too (or would it?)

quoted

Which it isn't - as it turns out, RCU preempt and RCU-bh are two
different flavors, and although Paul McKenney has consolidated
synchronize_rcu() to wait for both preempt as well as bh read-side
critical sections [1], the reader-side API is different, the lockdep
maps and keys are different.

The bridge calls synchronize_rcu() in br_vlan_flush(), and this does
wait for our TX fastpath reader of the br_vlan_group_rcu to complete
even though it is in an rcu-bh read side section. So even though this is
in premise safe, to lockdep this is a case of "who are you? I don't know
you, you're suspicious".

Side note, I still don't really understand the different RCU flavors.

RCU BH was there to handle denial-of-service networking loads.
Changes over the years to RCU and to softirq have rendered it obsolete.
But rcu_read_lock_bh() still disables softirq for you.

Thank you, I guess? :)

RCU Sched provides the original semantics.

RCU Preempt, as the name suggests, allows RCU readers to be preempted.
Of course, if you are using rcu_read_lock_sched() or rcu_read_lock_bh(),
you are disabling preemption across the critical section.

quoted

For example, as far as I can see, the core network stack has never
directly called synchronize_rcu_bh, not even once. Just the initial
synchronize_kernel(), replaced later with the RCU preempt variant -
synchronize_rcu(). Very very long story short, dev_queue_xmit has
started calling this exact variant - rcu_read_lock_bh() - since [2], to
make dev_deactivate properly wait for network interfaces with
NETIF_F_LLTX to finish their dev_queue_xmit(). But that relied on an
existing synchronize_rcu(), not synchronize_rcu_bh(). So does this mean
that synchronize_net() never really waited for the rcu-bh critical
section in dev_queue_xmit to finish? I've no idea.

The pre-consolidation Linux kernel v4.16 has these calls to
synchronize_rcu_bh():

drivers/net/team/team.c team_port_disable_netpoll 1094 synchronize_rcu_bh();
drivers/vhost/net.c vhost_net_release 1027 synchronize_rcu_bh();
net/netfilter/ipset/ip_set_hash_gen.h mtype_resize 667 synchronize_rcu_bh();

But to your point, nothing in net/core.

And for v4.16 kernels build with CONFIG_PREEMPT=y, there is no guarantee
that synchronize_rcu() will wait for a rcu_read_lock_bh() critical
section.  A CPU in such a critical section could take a scheduling-clock
interrupt, notice that it was not in an rcu_read_lock() critical section,
and report a quiescent state, which could well end that grace period.

I find it really hard to believe that commit d4828d85d188
("[NET]: Prevent transmission after dev_deactivate") did not provide the
guarantee it promised. It seems much more likely that I'm missing something,
although I don't see what :)

But the team driver, which I did notice, and which you've linked to
above as well, did have a comment which suggested that yes, if you don't
call synchronize_rcu_bh(), you don't really wait for __dev_queue_xmit()
to finish.

But as you say, in more recent kernels, synchronize_rcu() will indeed
wait for rcu_read_lock_bh() critical sections.

But please be very careful when backporting.

No concerns with backporting, the code in question was added last month
or so.

quoted

So basically there are multiple options.

First would be to duplicate br_vlan_get_pvid_rcu() into a new
br_vlan_get_pvid_rcu_bh() to appease lockdep for the TX path case. But
this function already has another brother, br_vlan_get_pvid(), which is
protected by the update-side rtnl_mutex. We don't want to grow the
family too big too, especially since br_vlan_get_pvid_rcu_bh() would not
be a function used by the bridge at all, just exported by it and used by
the DSA layer.

The option of getting to the bottom of why does __dev_queue_xmit use
rcu-bh, and splitting that into local_bh_disable + rcu_read_lock, as it
was before [3], might be impractical. There have been 15 years of
development since then, and there are lots of code paths that use
rcu_dereference_bh() in the TX path. Plus, with the consolidation work
done in [1], I'm not even sure what are the practical benefits of rcu-bh
any longer, if the whole point was for synchronize_rcu() to wait for
everything in sight - how can spammy softirqs like networking paint
themselves red any longer, and how can certain RCU updaters not wait for
them now, in order to avoid denial of service? It doesn't appear
possible from the distance from which I'm looking at the problem.
So the effort of converting __dev_queue_xmit from rcu-bh to rcu-preempt
would only appear justified if it went together with the complete
elimination of rcu-bh. Also, it would appear to be quite a strange and
roundabout way to fix a "suspicious RCU usage" lockdep message.

The thing to be very careful of is code that might be implicitly assuming
that it cannot be interrupted by a softirq handler.  This assumption will
of course be violated by changing rcu_read_lock_bh() to rcu_read_lock().
The resulting low-probability subtle breakage might be hard to find.

Of course, the networking code would not change functionally with the
removal of rcu_read_lock_bh(). So rcu_read_lock_bh() would be
transformed into local_bh_disable() + rcu_read_lock(). I am still a bit
unclear on the details, but there are reasons why we need softirqs
disabled - we don't call hard_start_xmit just from the NET_TX softirq,
that would be just too nice :)

quoted

Last, it appears possible to just give lockdep what it wants, and hold
an rcu-preempt read-side critical section when calling br_vlan_get_pvid_rcu
from the TX path. In terms of lines of code and amount of thought needed
it is certainly the easiest path forward, even though it incurs a small
(negligible) performance overhead (and avoidable, at that). This is what
this patch does, in lack of a deeper understanding of lockdep, RCU or
the network transmission process.

[1] https://lwn.net/Articles/777036/
[2] commit d4828d85d188 ("[NET]: Prevent transmission after dev_deactivate")
[3] commit 43da55cbd54e ("[NET]: Do less atomic count changes in dev_queue_xmit.")

Fixes: d82f8ab0d874 ("net: dsa: tag_dsa: offload the bridge forwarding process")
Signed-off-by: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>

Of course, if no one really needs rcu_read_lock_bh() anymore, I would be
quite happy to simplify my life by getting rid of it.  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul

The basic idea that updaters could be resilient against softirq storms
sounds great in principle. Although if I understand correctly, that went
away with the consolidation. So again, it isn't that some resiliency
wouldn't be nice, but I'm looking at the current code and I just don't
see what the benefits of rcu_bh are. If the answer is as self-evident as
a naive person like me thinks it is - i.e. rcu_read_lock_bh is just a
glorified version of rcu_read_lock which also disables softirqs, just
with different lockdep rules - then is the consolidation really complete?
Couldn't the bh-disable readers be modified to just open-code the
disabling of softirqs, and resolve the lockdep issues that ensue from
having a separate flavor?

quoted

---
 net/dsa/tag_dsa.c | 5 ++---
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/dsa/tag_dsa.c b/net/dsa/tag_dsa.c
index 77d0ce89ab77..178464cd2bdb 100644
--- a/net/dsa/tag_dsa.c
+++ b/net/dsa/tag_dsa.c

@@ -150,10 +150,9 @@ static struct sk_buff *dsa_xmit_ll(struct sk_buff *skb, struct net_device *dev,
 		 * that's where the packets ingressed from.
 		 */
 		if (!br_vlan_enabled(br)) {
-			/* Safe because __dev_queue_xmit() runs under
-			 * rcu_read_lock_bh()
-			 */
+			rcu_read_lock();
 			err = br_vlan_get_pvid_rcu(br, &pvid);
+			rcu_read_unlock();
 			if (err)
 				return NULL;
 		}

-- 
2.25.1