On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 02:50:04PM +0100, Magnus Karlsson wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 at 08:00, Yewon Choi <woni9911@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > We found some possibility of missing read memory barrier in xsk_poll(),
> > so we would like to ask to check it.
> >
> > commit e6762c8b adds two smp_rmb() in xsk_mmap(), which are paired with
> > smp_wmb() in XDP_UMEM_REG and xsk_init_queue each. The later one is
> > added in order to prevent reordering between reading of q and reading
> > of q->ring.
> > One example in simplied code is:
> >
> > xsk_mmap():
> > if (offset == XDP_PGOFF_RX_RING) {
> > q = READ_ONCE(xs->rx);
> > }
> > ...
> > if (!q)
> > return -EINVAL;
> >
> > /* Matches the smp_wmb() in xsk_init_queue */
> > smp_rmb();
> > ...
> > return remap_vmalloc_range(vma, q->ring, 0);
> >
> > Also, the similar logic exists in xsk_poll() without smp_rmb().
> >
> > xsk_poll():
> > ...
> > if (xs->rx && !xskq_prod_is_empty(xs->rx))
> > mask |= EPOLLIN | EPOLLRDNORM;
> > if (xs->tx && xsk_tx_writeable(xs))
> > mask |= EPOLLOUT | EPOLLWRNORM;
> >
> > xskq_prod_is_empty():
> > return READ_ONCE(q->ring->consumer) && ...
> >
> > To be consistent, I think that smp_rmb() is needed between
> > xs->rx and !xsq_prod_is_empty() and the same applies for xs->tx.
> >
> > Could you check this please?
> > If a patch is needed, we will send them.
>
> Yes, you are correct that the current code would need an smp_rmb().
> However, an unbound socket should never be allowed to enter the
> xsk_poll() code in the first place since it is pointless to poll a
> socket that has not been bound. This error was introduced in the
> commit below:
>
> commit 1596dae2f17ec5c6e8c8f0e3fec78c5ae55c1e0b
> Author: Maciej Fijalkowski <maciej.fijalkowski@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed Feb 15 15:33:09 2023 +0100
>
> xsk: check IFF_UP earlier in Tx path
>
> When an AF_XDP socket has been bound, it is guaranteed to have been
> set up in the correct way and a memory barrier has already been
> executed in the xsk_bind call. It would be great if you could submit a
> patch, but I suggest that you do something like this instead of
> introducing an smp_rmb():
>
> if (xsk_check_common(xs))
> goto out;
> :
> :
>
> if (xs->rx && !xskq_prod_is_empty(xs->rx))
> mask |= EPOLLIN | EPOLLRDNORM;
> if (xs->tx && xsk_tx_writeable(xs))
> mask |= EPOLLOUT | EPOLLWRNORM;
>
> out:
> rcu_read_unlock();
> return mask;
>
I didn't grab that semantic fully, thank you for pointing it out.
As you suggested, it seems that the part right below skip_tx also should
be skipped.
Additionally, I think read ordering will be guaranteed by smp_rmb()
in xsk_check_common().
I'll write a patch after making sure it, just in case of my mistake.
Thank you for your reply.
> Thank you for spotting this!
>
> /Magnus
>
Best Regards,
Yewon Choi
