[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/6] ethdev: add port ownership

[Matan Azrad]

Hi Konstantin
From: Ananyev, Konstantin, Monday, January 15, 2018 8:44 PM
> Hi Matan,
> > Hi Konstantin
> > From: Ananyev, Konstantin, Monday, January 15, 2018 1:45 PM
> > > Hi Matan,
> > > > Hi Konstantin
> > > > From: Ananyev, Konstantin, Friday, January 12, 2018 2:02 AM
> > > > > Hi Matan,
> > > > > > Hi Konstantin
> > > > > > From: Ananyev, Konstantin, Thursday, January 11, 2018 2:40 PM
> > > > > > > Hi Matan,
> > > > > > > > Hi Konstantin
> > > > > > > > From: Ananyev, Konstantin, Wednesday, January 10, 2018
> > > > > > > > 3:36 PM
> > > > > > > > > Hi Matan,
 <snip>
> > > > > > > > > It is good to see that now scanning/updating
> > > > > > > > > rte_eth_dev_data[] is lock protected, but it might be
> > > > > > > > > not very plausible to protect both data[] and
> > > > > > > > > next_owner_id using the
> > > same lock.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I guess you mean to the owner structure in
> > > rte_eth_dev_data[port_id].
> > > > > > > > The next_owner_id is read by ownership APIs(for owner
> > > > > > > > validation), so it
> > > > > > > makes sense to use the same lock.
> > > > > > > > Actually, why not?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Well to me next_owner_id and rte_eth_dev_data[] are not
> > > > > > > directly
> > > > > related.
> > > > > > > You may create new owner_id but it doesn't mean you would
> > > > > > > update rte_eth_dev_data[] immediately.
> > > > > > > And visa-versa - you might just want to update
> > > > > > > rte_eth_dev_data[].name or .owner_id.
> > > > > > > It is not very good coding practice to use same lock for
> > > > > > > non-related data structures.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > I see the relation like next:
> > > > > > Since the ownership mechanism synchronization is in ethdev
> > > > > > responsibility, we must protect against user mistakes as much
> > > > > > as we can by
> > > > > using the same lock.
> > > > > > So, if user try to set by invalid owner (exactly the ID which
> > > > > > currently is
> > > > > allocated) we can protect on it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hmm, not sure why you can't do same checking with different lock
> > > > > or atomic variable?
> > > > >
> > > > The set ownership API is protected by ownership lock and checks
> > > > the owner ID validity By reading the next owner ID.
> > > > So, the owner ID allocation and set API should use the same atomic
> > > mechanism.
> > >
> > > Sure but all you are doing for checking validity, is  check that
> > > owner_id > 0 &&& owner_id < next_ownwe_id, right?
> > > As you don't allow owner_id overlap (16/3248 bits) you can safely do
> > > same check with just atomic_get(&next_owner_id).
> > >
> > It will not protect it, scenario:
> > - current next_id is X.
> > - call set ownership of port A with owner id X by thread 0(by user mistake).
> > - context switch 
> > - allocate new id by thread 1 and get X and change next_id to X+1
> atomically.
> > -  context switch
> > - Thread 0 validate X by atomic_read and succeed to take ownership.
> > - The system loosed the port(or will be managed by two entities) - crash.
> 
> 
> Ok, and how using lock will protect you with such scenario?

The owner set API validation by thread 0 should fail because the owner validation is included in the protected section.

> I don't think you can protect yourself against such scenario with or without
> locking.
> Unless you'll make it harder for the mis-behaving thread to guess valid
> owner_id, or add some extra logic here.
> 
> >
> >
> > > > The set(and others) ownership APIs already uses the ownership lock
> > > > so I
> > > think it makes sense to use the same lock also in ID allocation.
> > > >
> > > > > > > > > In fact, for next_owner_id, you don't need a lock - just
> > > > > > > > > rte_atomic_t should be enough.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I don't think so, it is problematic in next_owner_id
> > > > > > > > wraparound and may
> > > > > > > complicate the code in other places which read it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > IMO it is not that complicated, something like that should work I
> think.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > /* init to 0 at startup*/
> > > > > > > rte_atomic32_t *owner_id;
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > int new_owner_id(void)
> > > > > > > {
> > > > > > >     int32_t x;
> > > > > > >     x = rte_atomic32_add_return(&owner_id, 1);
> > > > > > >     if (x > UINT16_MAX) {
> > > > > > >        rte_atomic32_dec(&owner_id);
> > > > > > >        return -EOVERWLOW;
> > > > > > >     } else
> > > > > > >         return x;
> > > > > > > }
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Why not just to keep it simple and using the same lock?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Lock is also fine, I just think it better be a separate one
> > > > > > > - that would protext just next_owner_id.
> > > > > > > Though if you are going to use uuid here - all that probably
> > > > > > > not relevant any more.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I agree about the uuid but still think the same lock should be
> > > > > > used for
> > > both.
> > > > >
> > > > > But with uuid you don't need next_owner_id at all, right?
> > > > > So lock will only be used for rte_eth_dev_data[] fields anyway.
> > > > >
> > > > Sorry, I meant uint64_t, not uuid.
> > >
> > > Ah ok, my thought uuid_t is better as with it you don't need to
> > > support your own code to allocate new owner_id, but rely on system libs
> instead.
> > > But wouldn't insist here.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > > > > > Another alternative would be to use 2 locks - one for
> > > > > > > > > next_owner_id second for actual data[] protection.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Another thing - you'll probably need to grab/release a
> > > > > > > > > lock inside
> > > > > > > > > rte_eth_dev_allocated() too.
> > > > > > > > > It is a public function used by drivers, so need to be protected
> too.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yes, I thought about it, but decided not to use lock in next:
> > > > > > > > rte_eth_dev_allocated
> > > > > > > > rte_eth_dev_count
> > > > > > > > rte_eth_dev_get_name_by_port
> rte_eth_dev_get_port_by_name
> > > > > > > > maybe more...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As I can see in patch #3 you protect by lock access to
> > > > > > > rte_eth_dev_data[].name (which seems like a good  thing).
> > > > > > > So I think any other public function that access
> > > > > > > rte_eth_dev_data[].name should be protected by the same lock.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't think so, I can understand to use the ownership lock
> > > > > > here(as in port
> > > > > creation) but I don't think it is necessary too.
> > > > > > What are we exactly protecting here?
> > > > > > Don't you think it is just timing?(ask in the next moment and
> > > > > > you may get another answer) I don't see optional crash.
> > > > >
> > > > > Not sure what you mean here by timing...
> > > > > As I understand rte_eth_dev_data[].name unique identifies device
> > > > > and is used by  port allocation/release/find functions.
> > > > > As you stated above:
> > > > > "1. The port allocation and port release synchronization will be
> > > > > managed by ethdev."
> > > > > To me it means that ethdev layer has to make sure that all
> > > > > accesses to rte_eth_dev_data[].name are atomic.
> > > > > Otherwise what would prevent the situation when one process does
> > > > > rte_eth_dev_allocate()->snprintf(rte_eth_dev_data[x].name, ...)
> > > > > while second one does
> > > rte_eth_dev_allocated(rte_eth_dev_data[x].name, ...) ?
> > > > >
> > > > The second will get True or False and that is it.
> > >
> > > Under race condition - in the worst case it might crash, though for
> > > that you'll have to be really unlucky.
> > > Though in most cases as you said it would just not operate correctly.
> > > I think if we start to protect dev->name by lock we need to do it
> > > for all instances (both read and write).
> > >
> > Since under the ownership rules, the user must take ownership of a port
> before using it, I still don't see a problem here.
> 
> I am not talking about owner id or name here.
> I am talking about dev->name.
> 
So? The user still should take ownership of a device before using it (by name or by port id). 
It can just read it without owning it, but no managing it. 

> > Please, Can you describe specific crash scenario and explain how could the
> locking fix it?
> 
> Let say thread 0 doing rte_eth_dev_allocate()-
> >snprintf(rte_eth_dev_data[x].name, ...), thread 1 doing
> rte_pmd_ring_remove()->rte_eth_dev_allocated()->strcmp().
> And because of race condition - rte_eth_dev_allocated() will return
> rte_eth_dev * for the wrong device.
Which wrong device do you mean? I guess it is the device which currently is being created by thread 0.
> Then rte_pmd_ring_remove() will call rte_free() for related resources, while
> It can still be in use by someone else.
The rte_pmd_ring_remove caller(some DPDK entity) must take ownership (or validate that he is the owner) of a port before doing it(free, release), so no issue here.


Also I'm not sure I fully understand your scenario looks like moving the device state setting in allocation to be after the name setting will be good.
What do you think? 

> Konstantin
> 
> >
> > > > Maybe if it had been called just a moment after, It might get
> > > > different
> > > answer.
> > > > Because these APIs don't change ethdev structure(just read), it can be
> OK.
> > > > But again, I can understand to use ownership lock also here.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Konstantin