On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 01:54:01PM -0300, mleit...@redhat.com wrote:
> From: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leit...@gmail.com>
> 
> That's needed for the next patch, so we break the lock inversion between
> netns_sctp->addr_wq_lock and socket lock on
> sctp_addr_wq_timeout_handler(). With this, we can traverse addr_waitq
> without taking addr_wq_lock, taking it just for the write operations.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leit...@gmail.com>
> ---
> 
> Notes:
>     v1->v2:
>      As asked by Neil, this now reuses addr_wq_lock. And for that, also
>      rcu-ifyies addr_waitq.
> 
>  include/net/netns/sctp.h |  2 +-
>  net/sctp/protocol.c      | 81 
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
>  2 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/net/netns/sctp.h b/include/net/netns/sctp.h
> index 
> 3573a81815ad9e0efb6ceb721eb066d3726419f0..9e53412c4ed829e8e45777a6d95406d490dbaa75
>  100644
> --- a/include/net/netns/sctp.h
> +++ b/include/net/netns/sctp.h
> @@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ struct netns_sctp {
>        * It is a list of sctp_sockaddr_entry.
>        */
>       struct list_head local_addr_list;
> -     struct list_head addr_waitq;
> +     struct list_head __rcu addr_waitq;
>       struct timer_list addr_wq_timer;
>       struct list_head auto_asconf_splist;
>       spinlock_t addr_wq_lock;
> diff --git a/net/sctp/protocol.c b/net/sctp/protocol.c
> index 
> 53b7acde9aa37bf3d4029c459421564d5270f4c0..a5089883b28195f3aef69ef35b5397322a01126f
>  100644
> --- a/net/sctp/protocol.c
> +++ b/net/sctp/protocol.c
> @@ -593,15 +593,46 @@ static void sctp_v4_ecn_capable(struct sock *sk)
>       INET_ECN_xmit(sk);
>  }
>  
> +static void sctp_free_addr_wq(struct net *net)
> +{
> +     struct sctp_sockaddr_entry *addrw;
> +
> +     spin_lock_bh(&net->sctp.addr_wq_lock);
> +     del_timer(&net->sctp.addr_wq_timer);
> +     list_for_each_entry_rcu(addrw, &net->sctp.addr_waitq, list) {
> +             list_del_rcu(&addrw->list);
> +             kfree_rcu(addrw, rcu);
> +     }
> +     spin_unlock_bh(&net->sctp.addr_wq_lock);
> +}
> +
> +/* As there is no refcnt on sctp_sockaddr_entry, we must check inside
> + * the lock if it wasn't removed from addr_waitq already, otherwise we
> + * could double-free it.
> + */
> +static void sctp_free_addr_wq_entry(struct net *net,
> +                                 struct sctp_sockaddr_entry *addrw)
> +{
> +     struct sctp_sockaddr_entry *temp;
> +
> +     spin_lock_bh(&net->sctp.addr_wq_lock);
> +     list_for_each_entry_rcu(temp, &net->sctp.addr_waitq, list) {
> +             if (temp == addrw) {
> +                     list_del_rcu(&addrw->list);
> +                     kfree_rcu(addrw, rcu);

Missed a break here, will issue a v3 when you review it too..

  Marcelo

> +             }
> +     }
> +     spin_unlock_bh(&net->sctp.addr_wq_lock);
> +}
> +
>  static void sctp_addr_wq_timeout_handler(unsigned long arg)
>  {
>       struct net *net = (struct net *)arg;
> -     struct sctp_sockaddr_entry *addrw, *temp;
> +     struct sctp_sockaddr_entry *addrw;
>       struct sctp_sock *sp;
>  
> -     spin_lock_bh(&net->sctp.addr_wq_lock);
> -
> -     list_for_each_entry_safe(addrw, temp, &net->sctp.addr_waitq, list) {
> +     rcu_read_lock_bh();
> +     list_for_each_entry_rcu(addrw, &net->sctp.addr_waitq, list) {
>               pr_debug("%s: the first ent in wq:%p is addr:%pISc for cmd:%d 
> at "
>                        "entry:%p\n", __func__, &net->sctp.addr_waitq, 
> &addrw->a.sa,
>                        addrw->state, addrw);
> @@ -627,7 +658,9 @@ static void sctp_addr_wq_timeout_handler(unsigned long 
> arg)
>  
>                               timeo_val = jiffies;
>                               timeo_val += 
> msecs_to_jiffies(SCTP_ADDRESS_TICK_DELAY);
> +                             spin_lock_bh(&net->sctp.addr_wq_lock);
>                               mod_timer(&net->sctp.addr_wq_timer, timeo_val);
> +                             spin_unlock_bh(&net->sctp.addr_wq_lock);
>                               break;
>                       }
>               }
> @@ -647,35 +680,20 @@ static void sctp_addr_wq_timeout_handler(unsigned long 
> arg)
>  #if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_IPV6)
>  free_next:
>  #endif
> -             list_del(&addrw->list);
> -             kfree(addrw);
> -     }
> -     spin_unlock_bh(&net->sctp.addr_wq_lock);
> -}
> -
> -static void sctp_free_addr_wq(struct net *net)
> -{
> -     struct sctp_sockaddr_entry *addrw;
> -     struct sctp_sockaddr_entry *temp;
> -
> -     spin_lock_bh(&net->sctp.addr_wq_lock);
> -     del_timer(&net->sctp.addr_wq_timer);
> -     list_for_each_entry_safe(addrw, temp, &net->sctp.addr_waitq, list) {
> -             list_del(&addrw->list);
> -             kfree(addrw);
> +             sctp_free_addr_wq_entry(net, addrw);
>       }
> -     spin_unlock_bh(&net->sctp.addr_wq_lock);
> +     rcu_read_unlock_bh();
>  }
>  
>  /* lookup the entry for the same address in the addr_waitq
> - * sctp_addr_wq MUST be locked
> + * rcu read MUST be locked
>   */
>  static struct sctp_sockaddr_entry *sctp_addr_wq_lookup(struct net *net,
>                                       struct sctp_sockaddr_entry *addr)
>  {
>       struct sctp_sockaddr_entry *addrw;
>  
> -     list_for_each_entry(addrw, &net->sctp.addr_waitq, list) {
> +     list_for_each_entry_rcu(addrw, &net->sctp.addr_waitq, list) {
>               if (addrw->a.sa.sa_family != addr->a.sa.sa_family)
>                       continue;
>               if (addrw->a.sa.sa_family == AF_INET) {
> @@ -702,7 +720,7 @@ void sctp_addr_wq_mgmt(struct net *net, struct 
> sctp_sockaddr_entry *addr, int cm
>        * new address after a couple of addition and deletion of that address
>        */
>  
> -     spin_lock_bh(&net->sctp.addr_wq_lock);
> +     rcu_read_lock_bh();
>       /* Offsets existing events in addr_wq */
>       addrw = sctp_addr_wq_lookup(net, addr);
>       if (addrw) {
> @@ -710,22 +728,21 @@ void sctp_addr_wq_mgmt(struct net *net, struct 
> sctp_sockaddr_entry *addr, int cm
>                       pr_debug("%s: offsets existing entry for %d, addr:%pISc 
> "
>                                "in wq:%p\n", __func__, addrw->state, 
> &addrw->a.sa,
>                                &net->sctp.addr_waitq);
> -
> -                     list_del(&addrw->list);
> -                     kfree(addrw);
> +                     sctp_free_addr_wq_entry(net, addrw);
>               }
> -             spin_unlock_bh(&net->sctp.addr_wq_lock);
> +             rcu_read_unlock_bh();
>               return;
>       }
> +     rcu_read_unlock_bh();
>  
>       /* OK, we have to add the new address to the wait queue */
>       addrw = kmemdup(addr, sizeof(struct sctp_sockaddr_entry), GFP_ATOMIC);
> -     if (addrw == NULL) {
> -             spin_unlock_bh(&net->sctp.addr_wq_lock);
> +     if (!addrw)
>               return;
> -     }
>       addrw->state = cmd;
> -     list_add_tail(&addrw->list, &net->sctp.addr_waitq);
> +
> +     spin_lock_bh(&net->sctp.addr_wq_lock);
> +     list_add_tail_rcu(&addrw->list, &net->sctp.addr_waitq);
>  
>       pr_debug("%s: add new entry for cmd:%d, addr:%pISc in wq:%p\n",
>                __func__, addrw->state, &addrw->a.sa, &net->sctp.addr_waitq);
> -- 
> 2.4.1
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sctp" in
> the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to