Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1666167

Re: [PATCH v3 11/18] xen/pvcalls: implement accept command

Show all headers | View raw

On Wed, 14 Jun 2017, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 14/06/17 02:47, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Tue, 13 Jun 2017, Juergen Gross wrote:
> >> On 02/06/17 21:31, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> >>> Implement the accept command by calling inet_accept. To avoid blocking
> >>> in the kernel, call inet_accept(O_NONBLOCK) from a workqueue, which get
> >>> scheduled on sk_data_ready (for a passive socket, it means that there
> >>> are connections to accept).
> >>>
> >>> Use the reqcopy field to store the request. Accept the new socket from
> >>> the delayed work function, create a new sock_mapping for it, map
> >>> the indexes page and data ring, and reply to the other end. Allocate an
> >>> ioworker for the socket.
> >>>
> >>> Only support one outstanding blocking accept request for every socket at
> >>> any time.
> >>>
> >>> Add a field to sock_mapping to remember the passive socket from which an
> >>> active socket was created.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini <stefano@aporeto.com>
> >>> CC: boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com
> >>> CC: jgross@suse.com
> >>> ---
> >>>  drivers/xen/pvcalls-back.c | 109 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> >>>  1 file changed, 108 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/xen/pvcalls-back.c b/drivers/xen/pvcalls-back.c
> >>> index a75586e..f1173f4 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/xen/pvcalls-back.c
> >>> +++ b/drivers/xen/pvcalls-back.c
> >>> @@ -65,6 +65,7 @@ struct pvcalls_ioworker {
> >>>  struct sock_mapping {
> >>>  	struct list_head list;
> >>>  	struct pvcalls_fedata *priv;
> >>> +	struct sockpass_mapping *sockpass;
> >>>  	struct socket *sock;
> >>>  	uint64_t id;
> >>>  	grant_ref_t ref;
> >>> @@ -275,10 +276,79 @@ static int pvcalls_back_release(struct xenbus_device *dev,
> >>>  
> >>>  static void __pvcalls_back_accept(struct work_struct *work)
> >>>  {
> >>> +	struct sockpass_mapping *mappass = container_of(
> >>> +		work, struct sockpass_mapping, register_work);
> >>> +	struct sock_mapping *map;
> >>> +	struct pvcalls_ioworker *iow;
> >>> +	struct pvcalls_fedata *priv;
> >>> +	struct socket *sock;
> >>> +	struct xen_pvcalls_response *rsp;
> >>> +	struct xen_pvcalls_request *req;
> >>> +	int notify;
> >>> +	int ret = -EINVAL;
> >>> +	unsigned long flags;
> >>> +
> >>> +	priv = mappass->priv;
> >>> +	/* We only need to check the value of "cmd" atomically on read. */
> >>> +	spin_lock_irqsave(&mappass->copy_lock, flags);
> >>> +	req = &mappass->reqcopy;
> >>> +	if (req->cmd != PVCALLS_ACCEPT) {
> >>> +		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&mappass->copy_lock, flags);
> >>> +		return;
> >>> +	}
> >>> +	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&mappass->copy_lock, flags);
> >>
> >> What about:
> >> 	req = &mappass->reqcopy;
> >> 	if (ACCESS_ONCE(req->cmd) != PVCALLS_ACCEPT)
> >> 		return;
> >>
> >> I can't see the need for taking a lock here.
> > 
> > Sure, good idea
> > 
> > 
> >>> +
> >>> +	sock = sock_alloc();
> >>> +	if (sock == NULL)
> >>> +		goto out_error;
> >>> +	sock->type = mappass->sock->type;
> >>> +	sock->ops = mappass->sock->ops;
> >>> +
> >>> +	ret = inet_accept(mappass->sock, sock, O_NONBLOCK, true);
> >>> +	if (ret == -EAGAIN) {
> >>> +		sock_release(sock);
> >>> +		goto out_error;
> >>> +	}
> >>> +
> >>> +	map = pvcalls_new_active_socket(priv,
> >>> +					req->u.accept.id_new,
> >>> +					req->u.accept.ref,
> >>> +					req->u.accept.evtchn,
> >>> +					sock);
> >>> +	if (!map) {
> >>> +		sock_release(sock);
> >>> +		goto out_error;
> >>> +	}
> >>> +
> >>> +	map->sockpass = mappass;
> >>> +	iow = &map->ioworker;
> >>> +	atomic_inc(&map->read);
> >>> +	atomic_inc(&map->io);
> >>> +	queue_work_on(iow->cpu, iow->wq, &iow->register_work);
> >>> +
> >>> +out_error:
> >>> +	rsp = RING_GET_RESPONSE(&priv->ring, priv->ring.rsp_prod_pvt++);
> >>> +	rsp->req_id = req->req_id;
> >>> +	rsp->cmd = req->cmd;
> >>> +	rsp->u.accept.id = req->u.accept.id;
> >>> +	rsp->ret = ret;
> >>> +	RING_PUSH_RESPONSES_AND_CHECK_NOTIFY(&priv->ring, notify);
> >>> +	if (notify)
> >>> +		notify_remote_via_irq(priv->irq);
> >>> +
> >>> +	spin_lock_irqsave(&mappass->copy_lock, flags);
> >>> +	mappass->reqcopy.cmd = 0;
> >>> +	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&mappass->copy_lock, flags);
> >>
> >> ACCESS_ONCE(mappass->reqcopy.cmd) = 0;
> > 
> > OK
> > 
> > 
> >>>  }
> >>>  
> >>>  static void pvcalls_pass_sk_data_ready(struct sock *sock)
> >>>  {
> >>> +	struct sockpass_mapping *mappass = sock->sk_user_data;
> >>> +
> >>> +	if (mappass == NULL)
> >>> +		return;
> >>> +
> >>> +	queue_work(mappass->wq, &mappass->register_work);
> >>>  }
> >>>  
> >>>  static int pvcalls_back_bind(struct xenbus_device *dev,
> >>> @@ -380,7 +450,44 @@ static int pvcalls_back_listen(struct xenbus_device *dev,
> >>>  static int pvcalls_back_accept(struct xenbus_device *dev,
> >>>  			       struct xen_pvcalls_request *req)
> >>>  {
> >>> -	return 0;
> >>> +	struct pvcalls_fedata *priv;
> >>> +	struct sockpass_mapping *mappass;
> >>> +	int ret = -EINVAL;
> >>> +	struct xen_pvcalls_response *rsp;
> >>> +	unsigned long flags;
> >>> +
> >>> +	priv = dev_get_drvdata(&dev->dev);
> >>> +
> >>> +	mappass = radix_tree_lookup(&priv->socketpass_mappings,
> >>> +		req->u.accept.id);
> >>> +	if (mappass == NULL)
> >>> +		goto out_error;
> >>> +
> >>> +	/* 
> >>> +	 * Limitation of the current implementation: only support one
> >>> +	 * concurrent accept or poll call on one socket.
> >>> +	 */
> >>> +	spin_lock_irqsave(&mappass->copy_lock, flags);
> >>> +	if (mappass->reqcopy.cmd != 0) {
> >>> +		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&mappass->copy_lock, flags);
> >>> +		ret = -EINTR;
> >>> +		goto out_error;
> >>> +	}
> >>> +
> >>> +	mappass->reqcopy = *req;
> >>
> >> This time you need the lock, however you should use:
> >>
> >> ACCESS_ONCE(mappass->reqcopy) = *req;
> > 
> > I don't think that guarantees atomic accesses to the cmd field of the
> > struct. Shouldn't this be:
> > 
> >   ACCESS_ONCE(mappass->reqcopy.cmd) = req->cmd;
> >   mappass->reqcopy = *req;
> 
> Hmm, what if the frontend changes cmd between those two accesses?

This cannot happen because req is a copy of the guest request here.
However, it is possible that __pvcalls_back_accept is racing against
pvcalls_back_accept. In that case, I would need to make sure not only
that cmd is written atomically, but now that I am thinking about this,
that cmd is written *after* the rest of reqcopy: otherwise
__pvcalls_back_accept could see a partially updated reqcopy.

It would be possible to do this with atomic accesses and barriers, but
I am thinking that it is not worth the effort. I am tempted to roll back
to the previous version with spinlocks.


> You either need another local buffer or you have to copy cmd via
> ACCESS_ONCE() and the rest of *req separately (seems not to be
> that hard: its just cmd, req_id and u).
> 
> BTW: Maybe you should use READ_ONCE() and WRITE_ONCE() instead of
> ACCESS_ONCE(), as those seem to be preferred nowadays.

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: [PATCH v3 11/18] xen/pvcalls: implement accept command Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com> - 2017-06-13 09:30 +0200
  Re: [PATCH v3 11/18] xen/pvcalls: implement accept command Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org> - 2017-06-14 02:50 +0200
    Re: [PATCH v3 11/18] xen/pvcalls: implement accept command Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com> - 2017-06-14 08:40 +0200
      Re: [PATCH v3 11/18] xen/pvcalls: implement accept command Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org> - 2017-06-14 21:40 +0200
        Re: [PATCH v3 11/18] xen/pvcalls: implement accept command Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com> - 2017-06-15 09:00 +0200
          Re: [PATCH v3 11/18] xen/pvcalls: implement accept command Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org> - 2017-06-15 20:00 +0200

csiph-web