Message ID | 20200812095639.4062-1-xiangxia.m.yue@gmail.com |
---|---|
State | Awaiting Upstream |
Headers | show |
Series | [ovs-dev,v2] net: openvswitch: introduce common code for flushing flows | expand |
On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 2:59 AM <xiangxia.m.yue@gmail.com> wrote: > > From: Tonghao Zhang <xiangxia.m.yue@gmail.com> > > To avoid some issues, for example RCU usage warning and double free, > we should flush the flows under ovs_lock. This patch refactors > table_instance_destroy and introduces table_instance_flow_flush > which can be invoked by __dp_destroy or ovs_flow_tbl_flush. > > Fixes: 50b0e61b32ee ("net: openvswitch: fix possible memleak on destroy flow-table") > Reported-by: Johan Knöös <jknoos@google.com> > Reported-at: https://mail.openvswitch.org/pipermail/ovs-discuss/2020-August/050489.html > Signed-off-by: Tonghao Zhang <xiangxia.m.yue@gmail.com> Reviewed-by: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com> Thanks.
From: xiangxia.m.yue@gmail.com Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 17:56:39 +0800 > From: Tonghao Zhang <xiangxia.m.yue@gmail.com> > > To avoid some issues, for example RCU usage warning and double free, > we should flush the flows under ovs_lock. This patch refactors > table_instance_destroy and introduces table_instance_flow_flush > which can be invoked by __dp_destroy or ovs_flow_tbl_flush. > > Fixes: 50b0e61b32ee ("net: openvswitch: fix possible memleak on destroy flow-table") > Reported-by: Johan Knöös <jknoos@google.com> > Reported-at: https://mail.openvswitch.org/pipermail/ovs-discuss/2020-August/050489.html > Signed-off-by: Tonghao Zhang <xiangxia.m.yue@gmail.com> Applied, thank you.
On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 3:53 PM David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote: > > From: xiangxia.m.yue@gmail.com > Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 17:56:39 +0800 > > > From: Tonghao Zhang <xiangxia.m.yue@gmail.com> > > > > To avoid some issues, for example RCU usage warning and double free, > > we should flush the flows under ovs_lock. This patch refactors > > table_instance_destroy and introduces table_instance_flow_flush > > which can be invoked by __dp_destroy or ovs_flow_tbl_flush. > > > > Fixes: 50b0e61b32ee ("net: openvswitch: fix possible memleak on destroy flow-table") > > Reported-by: Johan Knöös <jknoos@google.com> > > Reported-at: https://mail.openvswitch.org/pipermail/ovs-discuss/2020-August/050489.html > > Signed-off-by: Tonghao Zhang <xiangxia.m.yue@gmail.com> > > Applied, thank you. Tonghao, does the following change to your commit make sense to be able to apply it on 5.6.14 (e3ac9117b18596b7363d5b7904ab03a7d782b40c)? @@ -393,7 +387,7 @@ void ovs_flow_tbl_destroy(struct flow_table *table) free_percpu(table->mask_cache); kfree_rcu(rcu_dereference_raw(table->mask_array), rcu); - table_instance_destroy(table, ti, ufid_ti, false); + table_instance_destroy(ti, ufid_ti); }
On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 3:28 AM Johan Knöös <jknoos@google.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 3:53 PM David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote: > > > > From: xiangxia.m.yue@gmail.com > > Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 17:56:39 +0800 > > > > > From: Tonghao Zhang <xiangxia.m.yue@gmail.com> > > > > > > To avoid some issues, for example RCU usage warning and double free, > > > we should flush the flows under ovs_lock. This patch refactors > > > table_instance_destroy and introduces table_instance_flow_flush > > > which can be invoked by __dp_destroy or ovs_flow_tbl_flush. > > > > > > Fixes: 50b0e61b32ee ("net: openvswitch: fix possible memleak on destroy flow-table") > > > Reported-by: Johan Knöös <jknoos@google.com> > > > Reported-at: https://mail.openvswitch.org/pipermail/ovs-discuss/2020-August/050489.html > > > Signed-off-by: Tonghao Zhang <xiangxia.m.yue@gmail.com> > > > > Applied, thank you. > > Tonghao, does the following change to your commit make sense to be > able to apply it on 5.6.14 (e3ac9117b18596b7363d5b7904ab03a7d782b40c)? Not applied cleanly, if necessary I can send v3 for 5.6.14. > @@ -393,7 +387,7 @@ void ovs_flow_tbl_destroy(struct flow_table *table) > > free_percpu(table->mask_cache); > kfree_rcu(rcu_dereference_raw(table->mask_array), rcu); > - table_instance_destroy(table, ti, ufid_ti, false); > + table_instance_destroy(ti, ufid_ti); > }
On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 12:48 AM Tonghao Zhang <xiangxia.m.yue@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 3:28 AM Johan Knöös <jknoos@google.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 3:53 PM David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote: > > > > > > From: xiangxia.m.yue@gmail.com > > > Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 17:56:39 +0800 > > > > > > > From: Tonghao Zhang <xiangxia.m.yue@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > To avoid some issues, for example RCU usage warning and double free, > > > > we should flush the flows under ovs_lock. This patch refactors > > > > table_instance_destroy and introduces table_instance_flow_flush > > > > which can be invoked by __dp_destroy or ovs_flow_tbl_flush. > > > > > > > > Fixes: 50b0e61b32ee ("net: openvswitch: fix possible memleak on destroy flow-table") > > > > Reported-by: Johan Knöös <jknoos@google.com> > > > > Reported-at: https://mail.openvswitch.org/pipermail/ovs-discuss/2020-August/050489.html > > > > Signed-off-by: Tonghao Zhang <xiangxia.m.yue@gmail.com> > > > > > > Applied, thank you. > > > > Tonghao, does the following change to your commit make sense to be > > able to apply it on 5.6.14 (e3ac9117b18596b7363d5b7904ab03a7d782b40c)? > Not applied cleanly, if necessary I can send v3 for 5.6.14. That would be appreciated. Thanks! > > @@ -393,7 +387,7 @@ void ovs_flow_tbl_destroy(struct flow_table *table) > > > > free_percpu(table->mask_cache); > > kfree_rcu(rcu_dereference_raw(table->mask_array), rcu); > > - table_instance_destroy(table, ti, ufid_ti, false); > > + table_instance_destroy(ti, ufid_ti); > > } > > > > -- > Best regards, Tonghao
diff --git a/net/openvswitch/datapath.c b/net/openvswitch/datapath.c index 42f8cc70bb2c..6e47ef7ef036 100644 --- a/net/openvswitch/datapath.c +++ b/net/openvswitch/datapath.c @@ -1756,6 +1756,7 @@ static int ovs_dp_cmd_new(struct sk_buff *skb, struct genl_info *info) /* Called with ovs_mutex. */ static void __dp_destroy(struct datapath *dp) { + struct flow_table *table = &dp->table; int i; for (i = 0; i < DP_VPORT_HASH_BUCKETS; i++) { @@ -1774,7 +1775,14 @@ static void __dp_destroy(struct datapath *dp) */ ovs_dp_detach_port(ovs_vport_ovsl(dp, OVSP_LOCAL)); - /* RCU destroy the flow table */ + /* Flush sw_flow in the tables. RCU cb only releases resource + * such as dp, ports and tables. That may avoid some issues + * such as RCU usage warning. + */ + table_instance_flow_flush(table, ovsl_dereference(table->ti), + ovsl_dereference(table->ufid_ti)); + + /* RCU destroy the ports, meters and flow tables. */ call_rcu(&dp->rcu, destroy_dp_rcu); } diff --git a/net/openvswitch/flow_table.c b/net/openvswitch/flow_table.c index 8c12675cbb67..e2235849a57e 100644 --- a/net/openvswitch/flow_table.c +++ b/net/openvswitch/flow_table.c @@ -473,19 +473,15 @@ static void table_instance_flow_free(struct flow_table *table, flow_mask_remove(table, flow->mask); } -static void table_instance_destroy(struct flow_table *table, - struct table_instance *ti, - struct table_instance *ufid_ti, - bool deferred) +/* Must be called with OVS mutex held. */ +void table_instance_flow_flush(struct flow_table *table, + struct table_instance *ti, + struct table_instance *ufid_ti) { int i; - if (!ti) - return; - - BUG_ON(!ufid_ti); if (ti->keep_flows) - goto skip_flows; + return; for (i = 0; i < ti->n_buckets; i++) { struct sw_flow *flow; @@ -497,18 +493,16 @@ static void table_instance_destroy(struct flow_table *table, table_instance_flow_free(table, ti, ufid_ti, flow, false); - ovs_flow_free(flow, deferred); + ovs_flow_free(flow, true); } } +} -skip_flows: - if (deferred) { - call_rcu(&ti->rcu, flow_tbl_destroy_rcu_cb); - call_rcu(&ufid_ti->rcu, flow_tbl_destroy_rcu_cb); - } else { - __table_instance_destroy(ti); - __table_instance_destroy(ufid_ti); - } +static void table_instance_destroy(struct table_instance *ti, + struct table_instance *ufid_ti) +{ + call_rcu(&ti->rcu, flow_tbl_destroy_rcu_cb); + call_rcu(&ufid_ti->rcu, flow_tbl_destroy_rcu_cb); } /* No need for locking this function is called from RCU callback or @@ -523,7 +517,7 @@ void ovs_flow_tbl_destroy(struct flow_table *table) call_rcu(&mc->rcu, mask_cache_rcu_cb); call_rcu(&ma->rcu, mask_array_rcu_cb); - table_instance_destroy(table, ti, ufid_ti, false); + table_instance_destroy(ti, ufid_ti); } struct sw_flow *ovs_flow_tbl_dump_next(struct table_instance *ti, @@ -641,7 +635,8 @@ int ovs_flow_tbl_flush(struct flow_table *flow_table) flow_table->count = 0; flow_table->ufid_count = 0; - table_instance_destroy(flow_table, old_ti, old_ufid_ti, true); + table_instance_flow_flush(flow_table, old_ti, old_ufid_ti); + table_instance_destroy(old_ti, old_ufid_ti); return 0; err_free_ti: diff --git a/net/openvswitch/flow_table.h b/net/openvswitch/flow_table.h index 74ce48fecba9..6e7d4ac59353 100644 --- a/net/openvswitch/flow_table.h +++ b/net/openvswitch/flow_table.h @@ -105,5 +105,8 @@ void ovs_flow_mask_key(struct sw_flow_key *dst, const struct sw_flow_key *src, bool full, const struct sw_flow_mask *mask); void ovs_flow_masks_rebalance(struct flow_table *table); +void table_instance_flow_flush(struct flow_table *table, + struct table_instance *ti, + struct table_instance *ufid_ti); #endif /* flow_table.h */