On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 03:15:23PM +0900, Toshiaki Makita wrote:
> On 2015/05/20 14:48, Simon Horman wrote:
> > rocker_port_ipv4_nh() and in turn rocker_port_ipv4_neigh() may be
> > be called with trans == SWITCHDEV_TRANS_PREPARE and then
> > trans == SWITCHDEV_TRANS_COMMIT from switchdev_port_obj_set() via
> > fib_table_insert().
> >
> > The first time that rocker_port_ipv4_nh() is called, with
> > trans == SWITCHDEV_TRANS_PREPARE, _rocker_neigh_add() adds a new entry to
> > the neigh table.
> >
> > And the second time rocker_port_ipv4_nh() is called, with
> > trans == SWITCHDEV_TRANS_COMMIT, that entry is found. This causes
> > rocker_port_ipv4_nh() to believe it is not adding an entry and thus it
> > frees "entry", which is still present in rocker driver's neigh table.
> >
> > This problem does not appear to affect deletion as my analysis is that
> > deletion is always performed with trans == SWITCHDEV_TRANS_NONE.
> >
> > For completeness _rocker_neigh_{add,del,prepare} are updated not to
> > manipulate fib table entries if trans == SWITCHDEV_TRANS_PREPARE.
> >
> > Fixes: c4f20321d968 ("rocker: support prepare-commit transaction model")
> > Reported-by: oshiaki Makita <[email protected]>
>
> 'T' is missing from my first name
Sorry about that.
> > Acked-by: Scott Feldman <[email protected]>
> > Signed-off-by: Simon Horman <[email protected]>
> >
> ...
> > static void _rocker_neigh_add(struct rocker *rocker,
> > + enum switchdev_trans trans,
> > struct rocker_neigh_tbl_entry *entry)
> > {
> > + if (trans == SWITCHDEV_TRANS_PREPARE)
> > + return;
> > entry->index = rocker->neigh_tbl_next_index++;
>
> Isn't index needed here? It looks to be used in later function call and
> logging.
Thanks, that does not follow the usual model of setting values
during the PREPARE (and all other) transaction phase(s).
> How about setting index like this?
>
> entry->index = rocker->neigh_tbl_next_index;
> if (trans == PREPARE)
> return;
> rocker->neigh_tbl_next_index++;
> ...
I am concerned that _rocker_neigh_add() may be called by some other
caller while a transaction is in process and thus entry->index will
be inconsistent across callers.
Perhaps we can convince ourselves that all the bases are covered.
So far my testing has drawn a blank. But the logic seems difficult to
reason about.
As we are basically allocating an index I suppose what is really needed for
a correct implementation is a transaction aware index allocator, like we
have for memory (rocker_port_kzalloc etc...). But that does seem like
overkill.
I think that we can make entry->index consistent across
calls in the same transaction at the expense of breaking the
rule that per-transaction data should be set during all transaction phases.
Something like this:
if (trans != SWITCHDEV_TRANS_COMMIT)
/* Avoid index being set to different values across calls
* to this function by the same caller within the same
* transaction.
*/
entry->index = rocker->neigh_tbl_next_index++;
if (trans == SWITCHDEV_TRANS_PREPARE)
return;
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
