Re: [PATCH net-next v2 10/10] net/smc: fix application data exception

[Wen Gu <guwen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 2022/8/26 17:51, D. Wythe wrote:

> From: "D. Wythe" <alibuda@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> After we optimize the parallel capability of SMC-R connection
> establishment, There is a certain probability that following
> exceptions will occur in the wrk benchmark test:
>
> Running 10s test @ http://11.213.45.6:80
>    8 threads and 64 connections
>    Thread Stats   Avg      Stdev     Max   +/- Stdev
>      Latency     3.72ms   13.94ms 245.33ms   94.17%
>      Req/Sec     1.96k   713.67     5.41k    75.16%
>    155262 requests in 10.10s, 23.10MB read
> Non-2xx or 3xx responses: 3
>
> We will find that the error is HTTP 400 error, which is a serious
> exception in our test, which means the application data was
> corrupted.
>
> Consider the following scenarios:
>
> CPU0                            CPU1
>
> buf_desc->used = 0;
>                                  cmpxchg(buf_desc->used, 0, 1)
>                                  deal_with(buf_desc)
>
> memset(buf_desc->cpu_addr,0);
>
> This will cause the data received by a victim connection to be cleared,
> thus triggering an HTTP 400 error in the server.
>
> This patch exchange the order between clear used and memset, add
> barrier to ensure memory consistency.
>
> Fixes: 1c5526968e27 ("net/smc: Clear memory when release and reuse buffer")
> Signed-off-by: D. Wythe <alibuda@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>   net/smc/smc_core.c | 5 +++--
>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/smc/smc_core.c b/net/smc/smc_core.c
> index 84bf84c..fdad953 100644
> --- a/net/smc/smc_core.c
> +++ b/net/smc/smc_core.c
> @@ -1380,8 +1380,9 @@ static void smcr_buf_unuse(struct smc_buf_desc *buf_desc, bool is_rmb,
>   
>   		smc_buf_free(lgr, is_rmb, buf_desc);
>   	} else {
> -		buf_desc->used = 0;
> -		memset(buf_desc->cpu_addr, 0, buf_desc->len);
> +		/* memzero_explicit provides potential memory barrier semantics */
> +		memzero_explicit(buf_desc->cpu_addr, buf_desc->len);
> +		WRITE_ONCE(buf_desc->used, 0);
>   	}
>   }
>   

It seems that the same issue exists in smc_buf_unuse(), Maybe it also needs to be fixed?


static void smc_buf_unuse(struct smc_connection *conn,
			  struct smc_link_group *lgr)
{
	if (conn->sndbuf_desc) {
		if (!lgr->is_smcd && conn->sndbuf_desc->is_vm) {
			smcr_buf_unuse(conn->sndbuf_desc, false, lgr);
		} else {
			conn->sndbuf_desc->used = 0;
			memset(conn->sndbuf_desc->cpu_addr, 0,
			       conn->sndbuf_desc->len);
                        ^...................
		}
	}
	if (conn->rmb_desc) {
		if (!lgr->is_smcd) {
			smcr_buf_unuse(conn->rmb_desc, true, lgr);
		} else {
			conn->rmb_desc->used = 0;
			memset(conn->rmb_desc->cpu_addr, 0,
			       conn->rmb_desc->len +
			       sizeof(struct smcd_cdc_msg));
                        ^...................
		}
	}
}

Thanks,
Wen Gu