On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 16:23:28 +0100 Florian Westphal <fw@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > This isn't reliable. > > > > Uh oh. In hindsight, this sounds so obvious now... > > Thats a recurring theme with a lot of bugs. > So, no, it was not obvious. > > > > There can be multiple sets and we can't be sure that the upper > > > and lower half of all set scratch map is always in sync (lookups > > > can be conditional), so one set might have swapped, but other might > > > not have been queried. > > > > > > Thus we need to keep the index per-set-and-cpu, just like the > > > scratchpad. > > > > > > Note that this bug fix is incomplete, there is a related issue. > > > > > > avx2 and normal implementation might use slightly different areas of the > > > map array space due to the avx2 alignment requirements, so > > > m->scratch (generic/fallback implementation) and ->scratch_aligned > > > (avx) may partially overlap. scratch and scratch_aligned are not distinct > > > objects, the latter is just the aligned address of the former. > > > > > > After this change, write to scratch_align->map_index may write to > > > scratch->map, so this issue becomes more prominent, we can set to 1 > > > a bit in the supposedly-all-zero area of scratch->map[]. > > > > > > A followup patch will remove the scratch_aligned and makes generic and > > > avx code use the same (aligned) area. > > > > > > Its done in a separate change to ease review. > > > > > > Fixes: 3c4287f62044 ("nf_tables: Add set type for arbitrary concatenation of ranges") > > > Signed-off-by: Florian Westphal <fw@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > Minus one nit (not worth respinning) and one half-doubt below, > > > > Reviewed-by: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > ...I'm still reviewing the rest. > > Thanks for reviewing. > > > > #ifdef NFT_PIPAPO_ALIGN > > > - scratch_aligned = NFT_PIPAPO_LT_ALIGN(scratch); > > > + scratch_aligned = NFT_PIPAPO_LT_ALIGN(&scratch->map); > > > + /* Need to align ->map start, not start of structure itself */ > > > + scratch_aligned -= offsetof(struct nft_pipapo_scratch, map); > > > > This should be fine with the current version of > > NFT_PIPAPO_ALIGN_HEADROOM, but it took me quite some pondering, reasoning > > below if you feel like double checking. > > Good point. > > > Let's say ARCH_KMALLOC_MINALIGN is 4, NFT_PIPAPO_LT_ALIGN is 32, we > > need 100 bytes for the scratch map (existing implementation), and the > > address, x, we get from kzalloc_node() is k + 28, with k aligned to 32 > > bytes. > > Then, we'll ask to allocate 32 - 4 = 28 extra bytes > > (NFT_PIPAPO_ALIGN_HEADROOM), that is, 128 bytes, and we'll start using > > the area at x + 4 (aligned to 32 bytes), with 124 bytes in front of us. > > > > With this change, and the current NFT_PIPAPO_ALIGN_HEADROOM, we'll > > allocate (usually) 4 bytes more, 132 bytes, and we'll start using the > > area at x + 4 anyway, with 128 bytes in front of us, and we could have > > asked to allocate less, which made me think for a moment that > > NFT_PIPAPO_ALIGN_HEADROOM needed to be adjusted too. > > We'll allocate sizeof(long) more space (map_index), which is 4 bytes in > your example. Oh, right, it could be 8 bytes too. Let's stick to 4 for simplicity. > > However, 'scratch' at k + 28 is not the worst case: k + 32 is. At that > > point, we need anyway to ask for 28 extra bytes, because 'map_index' > > will force us to start from x + 32. > > Wait. k + 32 is really "k" for old code: slab gave us an aligned > address. Yes, I meant that for the *new* code: k + 32 mod 32 (that is, k) is the worst case for the new code. > In new code, k+4 is the perfect "already-aligned" address where we would > 'no-op' the address on a ARCH_KMALLOC_MINALIGN == 4 system. Isn't the already aligned-address k - 4, that is, k + 28? With k + 4, we would have &scratch->map[0] at k + 8. But anyway: > Lets assume we get address k, and that address is the worst > possible aligned one (with minalign 4), so we align > (k + 4) (&scratch->map[0]), then subtract the index/struct head, > which means we store (align(k+4) - 4), which would be 28. > > Worst case aligned value allocator can provide for new code > is k or k + 32 (make no difference): > > Lets say address we got from allocator is 0x4: > > NFT_PIPAPO_LT_ALIGN(&scratch->map); -> aligned to 32, we store 28 > as start of struct, so ->map[0] is at address 32. > > Lets say address we got from allocator is 0x20 (32): > NFT_PIPAPO_LT_ALIGN(&scratch->map); -> aligned to 64, we store 60 > as start of struct, so ->map[0] at 64. > > In both cases ALIGN() ate 28 bytes of the allocation, which we accounted > for as NFT_PIPAPO_ALIGN_HEADROOM. > > Maybe thats what you were saying. I could try to add/expand the > comments here for the alignment calculations. ...yes, the rest is exactly what I meant. I'm not really satisfied of the paragraph below but maybe something on the lines of: /* Align &scratch->map (not the struct itself): the extra * %NFT_PIPAPO_ALIGN_HEADROOM bytes passed to kzalloc_node() above * guarantee we can waste up to those bytes in order to align the map * field regardless of its offset within the struct. */ -- Stefano