lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Dec]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] ptr_ring: add barriers
From
Date


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.cherian@cavium.com>
> Suggested-by: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-12-06 03:32    [W:0.031 / U:0.396 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site