[v1] dccp: put dccp_qpolicy_full() and dccp_qpolicy_push() in the same lock

[PATCH] dccp: put dccp_qpolicy_full() and dccp_qpolicy_push() in the same lock

Posted by Hangyu Hua 3 years, 8 months ago

In the case of sk->dccps_qpolicy == DCCPQ_POLICY_PRIO, dccp_qpolicy_full
will drop a skb when qpolicy is full. And the lock in dccp_sendmsg is
released before sock_alloc_send_skb and then relocked after
sock_alloc_send_skb. The following conditions may lead dccp_qpolicy_push
to add skb to an already full sk_write_queue:

thread1--->lock
thread1--->dccp_qpolicy_full: queue is full. drop a skb
thread1--->unlock
thread2--->lock
thread2--->dccp_qpolicy_full: queue is not full. no need to drop.
thread2--->unlock
thread1--->lock
thread1--->dccp_qpolicy_push: add a skb. queue is full.
thread1--->unlock
thread2--->lock
thread2--->dccp_qpolicy_push: add a skb!
thread2--->unlock

Fix this by moving dccp_qpolicy_full.

Fixes: 871a2c16c21b ("dccp: Policy-based packet dequeueing infrastructure")
Signed-off-by: Hangyu Hua <hbh25y@gmail.com>
---
 net/dccp/proto.c | 10 +++++-----
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/dccp/proto.c b/net/dccp/proto.c
index eb8e128e43e8..1a0193823c82 100644
--- a/net/dccp/proto.c
+++ b/net/dccp/proto.c
@@ -736,11 +736,6 @@ int dccp_sendmsg(struct sock *sk, struct msghdr *msg, size_t len)
 
 	lock_sock(sk);
 
-	if (dccp_qpolicy_full(sk)) {
-		rc = -EAGAIN;
-		goto out_release;
-	}
-
 	timeo = sock_sndtimeo(sk, noblock);
 
 	/*
@@ -773,6 +768,11 @@ int dccp_sendmsg(struct sock *sk, struct msghdr *msg, size_t len)
 	if (rc != 0)
 		goto out_discard;
 
+	if (dccp_qpolicy_full(sk)) {
+		rc = -EAGAIN;
+		goto out_discard;
+	}
+
 	dccp_qpolicy_push(sk, skb);
 	/*
 	 * The xmit_timer is set if the TX CCID is rate-based and will expire
-- 
2.25.1

Re: [PATCH] dccp: put dccp_qpolicy_full() and dccp_qpolicy_push() in the same lock

Posted by Jakub Kicinski 3 years, 8 months ago

On Wed, 27 Jul 2022 16:06:09 +0800 Hangyu Hua wrote:
> In the case of sk->dccps_qpolicy == DCCPQ_POLICY_PRIO, dccp_qpolicy_full
> will drop a skb when qpolicy is full. And the lock in dccp_sendmsg is
> released before sock_alloc_send_skb and then relocked after
> sock_alloc_send_skb. The following conditions may lead dccp_qpolicy_push
> to add skb to an already full sk_write_queue:
> 
> thread1--->lock
> thread1--->dccp_qpolicy_full: queue is full. drop a skb

This linie should say "not full"?

> thread1--->unlock
> thread2--->lock
> thread2--->dccp_qpolicy_full: queue is not full. no need to drop.
> thread2--->unlock
> thread1--->lock
> thread1--->dccp_qpolicy_push: add a skb. queue is full.
> thread1--->unlock
> thread2--->lock
> thread2--->dccp_qpolicy_push: add a skb!
> thread2--->unlock
> 
> Fix this by moving dccp_qpolicy_full.
> 
> Fixes: 871a2c16c21b ("dccp: Policy-based packet dequeueing infrastructure")

This code was added in b1308dc015eb0, AFAICT. Please double check.

> Signed-off-by: Hangyu Hua <hbh25y@gmail.com>
> ---
>  net/dccp/proto.c | 10 +++++-----
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/net/dccp/proto.c b/net/dccp/proto.c
> index eb8e128e43e8..1a0193823c82 100644
> --- a/net/dccp/proto.c
> +++ b/net/dccp/proto.c
> @@ -736,11 +736,6 @@ int dccp_sendmsg(struct sock *sk, struct msghdr *msg, size_t len)
>  
>  	lock_sock(sk);
>  
> -	if (dccp_qpolicy_full(sk)) {
> -		rc = -EAGAIN;
> -		goto out_release;
> -	}
> -
>  	timeo = sock_sndtimeo(sk, noblock);
>  
>  	/*
> @@ -773,6 +768,11 @@ int dccp_sendmsg(struct sock *sk, struct msghdr *msg, size_t len)
>  	if (rc != 0)
>  		goto out_discard;
>  
> +	if (dccp_qpolicy_full(sk)) {
> +		rc = -EAGAIN;
> +		goto out_discard;
> +	}

Shouldn't this be earlier, right after relocking? Why copy the data etc.
if we know the queue is full?

>  	dccp_qpolicy_push(sk, skb);
>  	/*
>  	 * The xmit_timer is set if the TX CCID is rate-based and will expire

Re: [PATCH] dccp: put dccp_qpolicy_full() and dccp_qpolicy_push() in the same lock

Posted by Hangyu Hua 3 years, 8 months ago

On 2022/7/29 11:01, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jul 2022 16:06:09 +0800 Hangyu Hua wrote:
>> In the case of sk->dccps_qpolicy == DCCPQ_POLICY_PRIO, dccp_qpolicy_full
>> will drop a skb when qpolicy is full. And the lock in dccp_sendmsg is
>> released before sock_alloc_send_skb and then relocked after
>> sock_alloc_send_skb. The following conditions may lead dccp_qpolicy_push
>> to add skb to an already full sk_write_queue:
>>
>> thread1--->lock
>> thread1--->dccp_qpolicy_full: queue is full. drop a skb
> 
> This linie should say "not full"?

dccp_qpolicy_full only call dccp_qpolicy_drop when queue is full. You 
can check out qpolicy_prio_full. qpolicy_prio_full will drop a skb to 
make suer there is enough space for the next data. So I think it should 
be "full" here.

> 
>> thread1--->unlock
>> thread2--->lock
>> thread2--->dccp_qpolicy_full: queue is not full. no need to drop.
>> thread2--->unlock
>> thread1--->lock
>> thread1--->dccp_qpolicy_push: add a skb. queue is full.
>> thread1--->unlock
>> thread2--->lock
>> thread2--->dccp_qpolicy_push: add a skb!
>> thread2--->unlock
>>
>> Fix this by moving dccp_qpolicy_full.
>>
>> Fixes: 871a2c16c21b ("dccp: Policy-based packet dequeueing infrastructure")
> 
> This code was added in b1308dc015eb0, AFAICT. Please double check.
> 

My fault. I will fix this.

>> Signed-off-by: Hangyu Hua <hbh25y@gmail.com>
>> ---
>>   net/dccp/proto.c | 10 +++++-----
>>   1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/net/dccp/proto.c b/net/dccp/proto.c
>> index eb8e128e43e8..1a0193823c82 100644
>> --- a/net/dccp/proto.c
>> +++ b/net/dccp/proto.c
>> @@ -736,11 +736,6 @@ int dccp_sendmsg(struct sock *sk, struct msghdr *msg, size_t len)
>>   
>>   	lock_sock(sk);
>>   
>> -	if (dccp_qpolicy_full(sk)) {
>> -		rc = -EAGAIN;
>> -		goto out_release;
>> -	}
>> -
>>   	timeo = sock_sndtimeo(sk, noblock);
>>   
>>   	/*
>> @@ -773,6 +768,11 @@ int dccp_sendmsg(struct sock *sk, struct msghdr *msg, size_t len)
>>   	if (rc != 0)
>>   		goto out_discard;
>>   
>> +	if (dccp_qpolicy_full(sk)) {
>> +		rc = -EAGAIN;
>> +		goto out_discard;
>> +	}
> 
> Shouldn't this be earlier, right after relocking? Why copy the data etc.
> if we know the queue is full?
> 

You are right. The queue should be checked first after relocking. I will 
send a v2 later.

Thanks,
Hangyu.

>>   	dccp_qpolicy_push(sk, skb);
>>   	/*
>>   	 * The xmit_timer is set if the TX CCID is rate-based and will expire
>

Re: [PATCH] dccp: put dccp_qpolicy_full() and dccp_qpolicy_push() in the same lock

Posted by Jakub Kicinski 3 years, 8 months ago

On Fri, 29 Jul 2022 18:34:39 +0800 Hangyu Hua wrote:
> >> thread1--->lock
> >> thread1--->dccp_qpolicy_full: queue is full. drop a skb  
> > 
> > This linie should say "not full"?  
> 
> dccp_qpolicy_full only call dccp_qpolicy_drop when queue is full. You 
> can check out qpolicy_prio_full. qpolicy_prio_full will drop a skb to 
> make suer there is enough space for the next data. So I think it should 
> be "full" here.

Oh, I see what you're saying. That's unnecessarily complicated, 
I reckon. The "simple" policy suffers from the same problem and 
is easier to understand. Anyway, you already sent v2 and it doesn't
matter enough to warrant v3, so fine.