| Message ID | 1669450950-27681-1-git-send-email-alibuda@linux.alibaba.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Awaiting Upstream |
| Delegated to: | Netdev Maintainers |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [net] net/smc: fix application data exception | expand |
Hi, wenjia This patch of bugfix seems to have been hanging for a long time. If you have any concerns, please let us know. Best wishes. D. Wythe On 11/26/22 4:22 PM, D.Wythe wrote: > From: "D. Wythe" <alibuda@linux.alibaba.com> > > 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@linux.alibaba.com> > --- > 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); > } > } > }
On 26.11.22 09:22, D.Wythe wrote: > From: "D. Wythe" <alibuda@linux.alibaba.com> > > 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@linux.alibaba.com> > --- > 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@linux.ibm.com>
On Wed, 15 Feb 2023 10:27:55 +0100 Wenjia Zhang wrote: > 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@linux.ibm.com> Thanks! David, please repost if you'd like the patch to be applied to the networking tree. The original posting is too old to use.
On 2/16/23 1:31 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Wed, 15 Feb 2023 10:27:55 +0100 Wenjia Zhang wrote: >> 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@linux.ibm.com> > > Thanks! David, please repost if you'd like the patch to be applied to > the networking tree. The original posting is too old to use. Thank you for your reminder. I will repost it after rebasing. D. Wythe
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); } } }