On 2017年12月06日 10:53, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 10:31:39AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
On 2017年12月06日 03:29, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
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 <george.cher...@cavium.com>
Suggested-by: Jason Wang <jasow...@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <m...@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
Batch consumers only do smp_read_barrier_depends which is free on
non-alpha. I suggest we do the simple thing for stable and reserve
optimizations for later.
Right.
Acked-by: Jason Wang <jasow...@redhat.com>
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
