Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 11 May 2023 16:46:33 -0700
From:   Peilin Ye <yepeilin.cs@gmail.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Cc:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
        Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@mojatatu.com>,
        Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>,
        Peilin Ye <peilin.ye@bytedance.com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
        Vlad Buslov <vladbu@mellanox.com>,
        Pedro Tammela <pctammela@mojatatu.com>,
        Hillf Danton <hdanton@sina.com>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Cong Wang <cong.wang@bytedance.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 6/6] net/sched: qdisc_destroy() old ingress and
 clsact Qdiscs before grafting
Message-ID: <ZF1+WTqIXfcPAD9Q@C02FL77VMD6R.googleapis.com>
References: <cover.1683326865.git.peilin.ye@bytedance.com>
 <e6c4681dd9205d702ae2e6124e20c6210520e76e.1683326865.git.peilin.ye@bytedance.com>
 <20230508183324.020f3ec7@kernel.org>
 <ZFv6Z7hssZ9snNAw@C02FL77VMD6R.googleapis.com>
 <20230510161559.2767b27a@kernel.org>
 <ZF1SqomxfPNfccrt@C02FL77VMD6R.googleapis.com>
 <20230511162023.3651970b@kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230511162023.3651970b@kernel.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 04:20:23PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > But I see your point, thanks for the suggestion!  I'll try ->init() and
> > create v2.
>
> ->init() may be too early, aren't there any error points which could
> prevent the Qdisc from binding after ->init() was called?

You're right, it's in qdisc_create(), argh...

On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 04:20:23PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > > Looking at the code, I think there is no guarantee that (1st) cannot
> > > > happen after (2nd), although unlikely?  Can RTNL-lockless RTM_NEWTFILTER
> > > > handlers get preempted?
> > >
> > > Right, we need qdisc_graft(B) to update the appropriate dev pointer
> > > to point to b1. With that the ordering should not matter. Probably
> > > using the ->attach() callback?
> >
> > ->attach() is later than dev_graft_qdisc().  We should get ready for
> > concurrent filter requests (i.e. have dev pointer pointing to b1) before
> > grafting (publishing) B.
>
> I thought even for "unlocked" filter operations the start of it is
> under the lock, but the lock gets dropped after qdisc/block are found.
> I could be misremembering, I haven't looked at the code.

No, f.e. RTM_NEWTFILTER is registered as RTNL_FLAG_DOIT_UNLOCKED, so
tc_new_tfilter() starts and calls __tcf_qdisc_find() without RTNL mutex,
at least in latest code.

Thinking,
Peilin Ye