On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 08:43:25PM +0100, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> On 16.11.2016 19:51, Ido Schimmel wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 06:35:45PM +0100, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> >> On 16.11.2016 16:18, Ido Schimmel wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 03:51:01PM +0100, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> >>>> On 16.11.2016 15:09, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> >>>>> From: Ido Schimmel <ido...@mellanox.com>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Commit b90eb7549499 ("fib: introduce FIB notification infrastructure")
> >>>>> introduced a new notification chain to notify listeners (f.e., switchdev
> >>>>> drivers) about addition and deletion of routes.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> However, upon registration to the chain the FIB tables can already be
> >>>>> populated, which means potential listeners will have an incomplete view
> >>>>> of the tables.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Solve that by adding an API to request a FIB dump. The dump itself it
> >>>>> done using RCU in order not to starve consumers that need RTNL to make
> >>>>> progress.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Ido Schimmel <ido...@mellanox.com>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko <j...@mellanox.com>
> >>>>
> >>>> Have you looked at potential inconsistencies resulting of RCU walking
> >>>> the table and having concurrent inserts?
> >>>
> >>> Yes. I did try to think about situations in which this approach will
> >>> fail, but I could only find problems with concurrent removals, which I
> >>> addressed in 5/8. In case of concurrent insertions, even if you missed
> >>> the node, you would still get the ENTRY_ADD event to your listener.
> >>
> >> Theoretically a node could still be installed while the deletion event
> >> fired before registering the notifier. E.g. a synchronize_net before
> >> dumping could help here?
> >
> > If the deletion event fired for some fib alias, then by 5/8 we are
> > guaranteed that it was already unlinked from the fib alias list in the
> > leaf in which it was contained. So, while it's possible we didn't
> > register our listener in time for the deletion event, we won't traverse
> > this fib alias while dumping the trie anyway. Did I understand you
> > correctly?
> >
>
> Theoretically we can have the same problem for insertion:
>
> You receive a delete event from the notifier that is queued up first but
> the dump will still see the entry in the fib due to being managed by RCU
> (the notifier running on another CPU).
>
> The problem is that the fib_remove_alias->hlist_del_rcu->WRITE_ONCE is
> still not strongly ordered against the local fib dump trie walk.
It's pretty late here so I would have to check this out tomorrow
morning. If this is indeed the case (not saying you're wrong, just want
to verify for myself), then I guess 5/8 can be dropped and instead we
should go with Dave's suggestion? I don't see any other way given the
constraints...
Thanks a lot Hannes!
