On 26.11.22 09:22, D.Wythe wrote:
From: "D. Wythe" <alibuda@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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 | 17 ++++++++---------
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/smc/smc_core.c b/net/smc/smc_core.c
index c305d8d..c19d4b7 100644
--- a/net/smc/smc_core.c
+++ b/net/smc/smc_core.c
@@ -1120,8 +1120,9 @@ 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);
}
}
@@ -1132,19 +1133,17 @@ static void smc_buf_unuse(struct smc_connection *conn,
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);
+ memzero_explicit(conn->sndbuf_desc->cpu_addr, conn->sndbuf_desc->len);
+ WRITE_ONCE(conn->sndbuf_desc->used, 0);
}
}
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));
+ memzero_explicit(conn->rmb_desc->cpu_addr,
+ conn->rmb_desc->len + sizeof(struct smcd_cdc_msg));
+ WRITE_ONCE(conn->rmb_desc->used, 0);
}
}
}
Hi David,
Thank you for remembering me again about this patch. I did forget to
answer you, sorry!
My consideration was if memzero_explicit() is necessary in this case.
But sure, it makes sense, especiall when the dereferencing is in
somewhere else.
Thank you for the fix!
Reviewed-by: Wenjia Zhang <wenjia@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
