lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Nov]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] net: Convert net_mutex into rw_semaphore and down read it on net->init/->exit
From
Date
On 15.11.2017 06:19, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com> writes:
>
>> On 14.11.2017 21:39, Cong Wang wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 5:53 AM, Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com> wrote:
>>>> @@ -406,7 +406,7 @@ struct net *copy_net_ns(unsigned long flags,
>>>>
>>>> get_user_ns(user_ns);
>>>>
>>>> - rv = mutex_lock_killable(&net_mutex);
>>>> + rv = down_read_killable(&net_sem);
>>>> if (rv < 0) {
>>>> net_free(net);
>>>> dec_net_namespaces(ucounts);
>>>> @@ -421,7 +421,7 @@ struct net *copy_net_ns(unsigned long flags,
>>>> list_add_tail_rcu(&net->list, &net_namespace_list);
>>>> rtnl_unlock();
>>>> }
>>>> - mutex_unlock(&net_mutex);
>>>> + up_read(&net_sem);
>>>> if (rv < 0) {
>>>> dec_net_namespaces(ucounts);
>>>> put_user_ns(user_ns);
>>>> @@ -446,7 +446,7 @@ static void cleanup_net(struct work_struct *work)
>>>> list_replace_init(&cleanup_list, &net_kill_list);
>>>> spin_unlock_irq(&cleanup_list_lock);
>>>>
>>>> - mutex_lock(&net_mutex);
>>>> + down_read(&net_sem);
>>>>
>>>> /* Don't let anyone else find us. */
>>>> rtnl_lock();
>>>> @@ -486,7 +486,7 @@ static void cleanup_net(struct work_struct *work)
>>>> list_for_each_entry_reverse(ops, &pernet_list, list)
>>>> ops_free_list(ops, &net_exit_list);
>>>>
>>>> - mutex_unlock(&net_mutex);
>>>> + up_read(&net_sem);
>>>
>>> After your patch setup_net() could run concurrently with cleanup_net(),
>>> given that ops_exit_list() is called on error path of setup_net() too,
>>> it means ops->exit() now could run concurrently if it doesn't have its
>>> own lock. Not sure if this breaks any existing user.
>>
>> Yes, there will be possible concurrent ops->init() for a net namespace,
>> and ops->exit() for another one. I hadn't found pernet operations, which
>> have a problem with that. If they exist, they are hidden and not clear seen.
>> The pernet operations in general do not touch someone else's memory.
>> If suddenly there is one, KASAN should show it after a while.
>
> Certainly the use of hash tables shared between multiple network
> namespaces would count. I don't rembmer how many of these we have but
> there used to be quite a few.

Could you please provide an example of hash tables, you mean?

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-11-15 10:52    [W:0.107 / U:2.168 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site