On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 02:03:13AM +0900, Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote:
> From: Martin KaFai Lau <ka...@fb.com>
> Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2020 10:49:15 -0800
> > On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 02:15:38PM +0900, Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote:
> > > From: Martin KaFai Lau <ka...@fb.com>
> > > Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2020 16:07:07 -0800
> > > > On Tue, Dec 01, 2020 at 11:44:12PM +0900, Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote:
> > > > > This patch renames reuseport_select_sock() to
> > > > > __reuseport_select_sock() and
> > > > > adds two wrapper function of it to pass the migration type defined in
> > > > > the
> > > > > previous commit.
> > > > >
> > > > > reuseport_select_sock : BPF_SK_REUSEPORT_MIGRATE_NO
> > > > > reuseport_select_migrated_sock : BPF_SK_REUSEPORT_MIGRATE_REQUEST
> > > > >
> > > > > As mentioned before, we have to select a new listener for
> > > > > TCP_NEW_SYN_RECV
> > > > > requests at receiving the final ACK or sending a SYN+ACK. Therefore,
> > > > > this
> > > > > patch also changes the code to call reuseport_select_migrated_sock()
> > > > > even
> > > > > if the listening socket is TCP_CLOSE. If we can pick out a listening
> > > > > socket
> > > > > from the reuseport group, we rewrite request_sock.rsk_listener and
> > > > > resume
> > > > > processing the request.
> > > > >
> > > > > Reviewed-by: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <b...@amazon.com>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kun...@amazon.co.jp>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > include/net/inet_connection_sock.h | 12 +++++++++++
> > > > > include/net/request_sock.h | 13 ++++++++++++
> > > > > include/net/sock_reuseport.h | 8 +++----
> > > > > net/core/sock_reuseport.c | 34
> > > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++------
> > > > > net/ipv4/inet_connection_sock.c | 13 ++++++++++--
> > > > > net/ipv4/tcp_ipv4.c | 9 ++++++--
> > > > > net/ipv6/tcp_ipv6.c | 9 ++++++--
> > > > > 7 files changed, 81 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/include/net/inet_connection_sock.h
> > > > > b/include/net/inet_connection_sock.h
> > > > > index 2ea2d743f8fc..1e0958f5eb21 100644
> > > > > --- a/include/net/inet_connection_sock.h
> > > > > +++ b/include/net/inet_connection_sock.h
> > > > > @@ -272,6 +272,18 @@ static inline void
> > > > > inet_csk_reqsk_queue_added(struct sock *sk)
> > > > > reqsk_queue_added(&inet_csk(sk)->icsk_accept_queue);
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > +static inline void inet_csk_reqsk_queue_migrated(struct sock *sk,
> > > > > + struct sock *nsk,
> > > > > + struct request_sock
> > > > > *req)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + reqsk_queue_migrated(&inet_csk(sk)->icsk_accept_queue,
> > > > > + &inet_csk(nsk)->icsk_accept_queue,
> > > > > + req);
> > > > > + sock_put(sk);
> > > > not sure if it is safe to do here.
> > > > IIUC, when the req->rsk_refcnt is held, it also holds a refcnt
> > > > to req->rsk_listener such that sock_hold(req->rsk_listener) is
> > > > safe because its sk_refcnt is not zero.
> > >
> > > I think it is safe to call sock_put() for the old listener here.
> > >
> > > Without this patchset, at receiving the final ACK or retransmitting
> > > SYN+ACK, if sk_state == TCP_CLOSE, sock_put(req->rsk_listener) is done
> > > by calling reqsk_put() twice in inet_csk_reqsk_queue_drop_and_put().
> > Note that in your example (final ACK), sock_put(req->rsk_listener) is
> > _only_ called when reqsk_put() can get
> > refcount_dec_and_test(&req->rsk_refcnt)
> > to reach zero.
> >
> > Here in this patch, it sock_put(req->rsk_listener) without req->rsk_refcnt
> > reaching zero.
> >
> > Let says there are two cores holding two refcnt to req (one cnt for each
> > core)
> > by looking up the req from ehash. One of the core do this migrate and
> > sock_put(req->rsk_listener). Another core does
> > sock_hold(req->rsk_listener).
> >
> > Core1 Core2
> > sock_put(req->rsk_listener)
> >
> > sock_hold(req->rsk_listener)
>
> I'm sorry for the late reply.
>
> I missed this situation that different Cores get into NEW_SYN_RECV path,
> but this does exist.
> https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/1517977874.3715.153.ca...@gmail.com/#t
> https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/1518531252.3715.178.ca...@gmail.com/
>
>
> If close() is called for the listener and the request has the last refcount
> for it, sock_put() by Core2 frees it, so Core1 cannot proceed with freed
> listener. So, it is good to call refcount_inc_not_zero() instead of
> sock_hold(). If refcount_inc_not_zero() fails, it means that the listener
_inc_not_zero() usually means it requires rcu_read_lock().
That may have rippling effect on other req->rsk_listener readers.
There may also be places assuming that the req->rsk_listener will never
change once it is assigned. not sure. have not looked closely yet.
It probably needs some more thoughts here to get a simpler solution.
> is closed and the req->rsk_listener is changed in another place. Then, we
> can continue processing the request by rewriting sk with rsk_listener and
> calling sock_hold() for it.
>
> Also, the migration by Core2 can be done after sock_hold() by Core1. Then
> if Core1 win the race by removing the request from ehash,
> in inet_csk_reqsk_queue_add(), instead of sk, req->rsk_listener should be
> used as the proper listener to add the req into its queue. But if the
> rsk_listener is also TCP_CLOSE, we have to call inet_child_forget().
>
> Moreover, we have to check the listener is freed in the beginning of
> reqsk_timer_handler() by refcount_inc_not_zero().
>
>
> > > And then, we do `goto lookup;` and overwrite the sk.
> > >
> > > In the v2 patchset, refcount_inc_not_zero() is done for the new listener
> > > in
> > > reuseport_select_migrated_sock(), so we have to call sock_put() for the
> > > old
> > > listener instead to free it properly.
> > >
> > > ---8<---
> > > +struct sock *reuseport_select_migrated_sock(struct sock *sk, u32 hash,
> > > + struct sk_buff *skb)
> > > +{
> > > + struct sock *nsk;
> > > +
> > > + nsk = __reuseport_select_sock(sk, hash, skb, 0,
> > > BPF_SK_REUSEPORT_MIGRATE_REQUEST);
> > > + if (nsk && likely(refcount_inc_not_zero(&nsk->sk_refcnt)))
> > There is another potential issue here. The TCP_LISTEN nsk is protected
> > by rcu. refcount_inc_not_zero(&nsk->sk_refcnt) cannot be done if it
> > is not under rcu_read_lock().
> >
> > The receive path may be ok as it is in rcu. You may need to check for
> > others.
>
> IIUC, is this mean nsk can be NULL after grace period of RCU? If so, I will
worse than NULL. an invalid pointer.
> move rcu_read_lock/unlock() from __reuseport_select_sock() to
> reuseport_select_sock() and reuseport_select_migrated_sock().
ok.
>
>
> > > + return nsk;
> > > +
> > > + return NULL;
> > > +}
> > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(reuseport_select_migrated_sock);
> > > ---8<---
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20201207132456.65472-8-kun...@amazon.co.jp/
> > >
> > >
> > > > > + sock_hold(nsk);
> > > > > + req->rsk_listener = nsk;
> > It looks like there is another race here. What
> > if multiple cores try to update req->rsk_listener?
>
> I think we have to add a lock in struct request_sock, acquire it, check
> if the rsk_listener is changed or not, and then do migration. Also, if the
> listener has been changed, we have to tell the caller to use it as the new
> listener.
>
> ---8<---
> spin_lock(&lock)
> if (sk != req->rsk_listener) {
> nsk = req->rsk_listener;
> goto out;
> }
>
> // do migration
> out:
> spin_unlock(&lock)
> return nsk;
> ---8<---
cmpxchg may help here.
