Thanks for looking at the patch!
On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 13:18:56 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 02:58:14PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > Even though the atomic_dec_and_mutex_lock() in
> > __static_key_slow_dec_cpuslocked() can never see a negative
> > value in key->enabled the subsequent sanity check is re-reading
> > key->enabled, which may have been set to -1 in the meantime by
> > static_key_slow_inc_cpuslocked().
>
> A little extra detail might not hurt, or a diagram or something.
Like this:
CPU A CPU B
__static_key_slow_dec_cpuslocked():
static_key_slow_inc_cpuslocked():
# enabled = 1
atomic_dec_and_mutex_lock()
# enabled = 0
atomic_read() == 0
atomic_set(-1)
# enabled = -1
val = atomic_read()
# Oops - val == -1!
?
The test case is TCP's clean_acked_data_enable() /
clean_acked_data_disable() as tickled by ktls (net/ktls).
Which should probably use the delayed version in the first
place, hopefully I can get to adding delayed version of
static branches and converting at some point..
> > Instead of using -1 as a "enable in progress" constant use
> > -0xffff, this way we can still treat smaller negative values
> > as errors.
>
> Those offset games always hurt my brain, but see below.
>
> > Fixes: 4c5ea0a9cd02 ("locking/static_key: Fix concurrent
> > static_key_slow_inc()")
> > Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > kernel/jump_label.c | 21 ++++++++++-----------
> > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/jump_label.c b/kernel/jump_label.c
> > index bad96b476eb6..4a227e70a8f3 100644
> > --- a/kernel/jump_label.c
> > +++ b/kernel/jump_label.c
> > @@ -89,7 +89,7 @@ static void jump_label_update(struct static_key *key);
> > int static_key_count(struct static_key *key)
> > {
> > /*
> > - * -1 means the first static_key_slow_inc() is in progress.
> > + * -0xffff means the first static_key_slow_inc() is in progress.
> > * static_key_enabled() must return true, so return 1 here.
> > */
> > int n = atomic_read(&key->enabled);
> > @@ -125,7 +125,10 @@ void static_key_slow_inc_cpuslocked(struct static_key
> > *key)
> >
> > jump_label_lock();
> > if (atomic_read(&key->enabled) == 0) {
> > - atomic_set(&key->enabled, -1);
> > + /* Use a large enough negative number so we can still
> > + * catch underflow bugs in static_key_slow_dec().
> > + */
>
> Broken comment style.
Ah, sorry, netdev.
> > + atomic_set(&key->enabled, -0xffff);
> > jump_label_update(key);
> > /*
> > * Ensure that if the above cmpxchg loop observes our positive
> > @@ -158,7 +161,7 @@ void static_key_enable_cpuslocked(struct static_key
> > *key)
> >
> > jump_label_lock();
> > if (atomic_read(&key->enabled) == 0) {
> > - atomic_set(&key->enabled, -1);
> > + atomic_set(&key->enabled, -0xffff);
> > jump_label_update(key);
> > /*
> > * See static_key_slow_inc().
> > @@ -208,15 +211,11 @@ static void __static_key_slow_dec_cpuslocked(struct
> > static_key *key,
> > {
> > lockdep_assert_cpus_held();
> >
> > - /*
> > - * The negative count check is valid even when a negative
> > - * key->enabled is in use by static_key_slow_inc(); a
> > - * __static_key_slow_dec() before the first static_key_slow_inc()
> > - * returns is unbalanced, because all other static_key_slow_inc()
> > - * instances block while the update is in progress.
> > - */
> > if (!atomic_dec_and_mutex_lock(&key->enabled, &jump_label_mutex)) {
> > - WARN(atomic_read(&key->enabled) < 0,
> > + int v;
> > +
> > + v = atomic_read(&key->enabled);
> > + WARN(v < 0 && v != -0xffff,
> > "jump label: negative count!\n");
> > return;
> > }
>
> > Alternatively we could implement atomic_dec_and_mutex_lock_return().
>
> I think I like that better, something like:
That indeed looks far cleanest, thanks!
Tested-by: Jakub Kicinski <[email protected]>
> kernel/jump_label.c | 21 +++++++++++++--------
> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/jump_label.c b/kernel/jump_label.c
> index bad96b476eb6..a799b1ac6b2f 100644
> --- a/kernel/jump_label.c
> +++ b/kernel/jump_label.c
> @@ -206,6 +206,8 @@ static void __static_key_slow_dec_cpuslocked(struct
> static_key *key,
> unsigned long rate_limit,
> struct delayed_work *work)
> {
> + int val;
> +
> lockdep_assert_cpus_held();
>
> /*
> @@ -215,17 +217,20 @@ static void __static_key_slow_dec_cpuslocked(struct
> static_key *key,
> * returns is unbalanced, because all other static_key_slow_inc()
> * instances block while the update is in progress.
> */
> - if (!atomic_dec_and_mutex_lock(&key->enabled, &jump_label_mutex)) {
> - WARN(atomic_read(&key->enabled) < 0,
> - "jump label: negative count!\n");
> + val = atomic_fetch_add_unless(&key->enabled, -1, 1);
> + if (val != 1) {
> + WARN(val < 0, "jump label: negative count!\n");
> return;
> }
>
> - if (rate_limit) {
> - atomic_inc(&key->enabled);
> - schedule_delayed_work(work, rate_limit);
> - } else {
> - jump_label_update(key);
> + jump_label_lock();
> + if (atomic_dec_and_test(&key->enabled)) {
> + if (rate_limit) {
> + atomic_inc(&key->enabled);
> + schedule_delayed_work(work, rate_limit);
> + } else {
> + jump_label_update(key);
> + }
> }
> jump_label_unlock();
> }
