Re: [PATCH net-next v11 18/23] ovpn: implement peer add/get/dump/delete via netlink

[Antonio Quartulli <antonio@openvpn.net>]

On 29/11/2024 18:00, Sabrina Dubroca wrote:
> 2024-11-14, 11:32:36 +0100, Antonio Quartulli wrote:
>> On 13/11/2024 12:05, Sabrina Dubroca wrote:
>>> 2024-11-12, 15:26:59 +0100, Antonio Quartulli wrote:
>>>> On 11/11/2024 16:41, Sabrina Dubroca wrote:
>>>>> 2024-10-29, 11:47:31 +0100, Antonio Quartulli wrote:
>>>>>> +void ovpn_peer_hash_vpn_ip(struct ovpn_peer *peer)
>>>>>> +	__must_hold(&peer->ovpn->peers->lock)
>>>>>
>>>>> Changes to peer->vpn_addrs are not protected by peers->lock, so those
>>>>> could be getting updated while we're rehashing (and taking peer->lock
>>>>> in ovpn_nl_peer_modify as I'm suggesting above also wouldn't prevent
>>>>> that).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> /me screams :-D
>>>
>>> Sorry :)
>>>
>>>> Indeed peers->lock is only about protecting the lists, not the content of
>>>> the listed objects.
>>>>
>>>> How about acquiring the peers->lock before calling ovpn_nl_peer_modify()?
>>>
>>> It seems like it would work. Maybe a bit weird to have conditional
>>> locking (MP mode only), but ok. You already have this lock ordering
>>> (hold peers->lock before taking peer->lock) in
>>> ovpn_peer_keepalive_work_mp, so there should be no deadlock from doing
>>> the same thing in the netlink code.
>>
>> Yeah.
>>
>>>
>>> Then I would also do that in ovpn_peer_float to protect that rehash.
>>
>> I am not extremely comfortable with this, because it means acquiring
>> peers->lock on every packet (right now we do so only on peer->lock) and it
>> may defeat the advantage of the RCU locking on the hashtables.
>> Wouldn't you agree?
> 
> Hmpf, yeah. Then I think you could keep most of the current code,
> except doing the rehash under both locks (peers + peer), and get
> ss+sa_len for the rehash directly from peer->bind (instead of using
> the ones we just defined locally in ovpn_peer_float, since they may
> have changed while we released peer->lock to grab peers->lock). We may
> end up "rehashing" twice into the same bucket if we have 2 concurrent
> peer_float calls (call 1 sets remote r1, call 2 sets a new one r2,
> call 1 hashes according to r2, call 2 also rehashes based on r2). That
> should be ok (it can happen anyway that a "real" rehash lands in the
> same bucket).

I think the double rehashing is ok. It's a double float happening so we 
expect a double rehashing in any case.

> 
> peer_float {
>    spin_lock(peer)
>    match/update bind
>    spin_unlock(peer)
> 
>    if (MP) {
>      spin_lock(peers)
>      spin_lock(peer)
>      rehash using peer->bind->remote rather than ss
>      spin_unlock(peer)
>      spin_unlock(peers)
>    }
> }
> 
> 
> Does that sound reasonable?

Yeah, not very elegant, but this is what we need :)

Thanks!

Regards,


-- 
Antonio Quartulli
OpenVPN Inc.