Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 10 Jan 2019 15:48:12 +0100
From:   Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>,
        Anatol Pomozov <anatol.pomozov@gmail.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>, paulmck@linux.ibm.com,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: seqcount usage in xt_replace_table()
Message-ID: <20190110144812.mkbokbj2iyryj6lv@breakpoint.cc>
References: <CAOMFOmU=t9YbE68YpoQn0Ug0XN1F+0iuJp9J=htCRRrbdaPSVA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190108223746.shuwx3ro7cgwz7hh@breakpoint.cc>
 <20190110124123.GA21224@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190110124123.GA21224@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> 	/*
> 	 * Ensure contents of newinfo are visible before assigning to
> 	 * private.
> 	 */
> 	smp_wmb();
> 	table->private = newinfo;
> 
> we have:
> 
> 	smp_store_release(&table->private, newinfo);
> 
> But what store does that second smp_wmb() order against? The comment:
> 
> 	/* make sure all cpus see new ->private value */
> 	smp_wmb();
> 
> makes no sense what so ever, no smp_*() barrier can provide such
> guarantees.

IIRC I added this at the request of a reviewer of an earlier iteration
of that patch.

IIRC the concern was that compiler/hw could re-order

smb_wmb();
table->private = newinfo;
/* wait until all cpus are done with old table */

 into:

smb_wmb();
/* wait until all cpus are done with old table */
...
table->private = newinfo;

and that (obviously) makes the wait-loop useless.

> > Only alternative I see that might work is synchronize_rcu (the
> > _do_table functions are called with rcu read lock held).
> > 
> > I guess current scheme is cheaper though.
> 
> Is performance a concern in this path? There is no comment justifying
> this 'creative' stuff.

We have to wait until all cpus are done with current iptables ruleset.

Before this 'creative' change, this relied on get_counters
synchronization.  And that caused wait times of 30 seconds or more on
busy systems.

I have no objections swapping this with a synchronize_rcu() if that
makes it easier.

(synchronize_rcu might be confusing though, as we don't use rcu
 for table->private), and one 'has to know' that all the netfilter
 hooks, including the iptables eval loop, run with rcu_read_lock
 held).