Re: [EXT] Re: [net-next PATCH v6 1/2] octeontx2-af: Add new mbox to support multicast/mirror offload

[Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>]

On Wed, 2023-12-06 at 16:33 +0000, Suman Ghosh wrote:
> > On Mon, 2023-12-04 at 19:49 +0530, Suman Ghosh wrote:
> > > A new mailbox is added to support offloading of multicast/mirror
> > > functionality. The mailbox also supports dynamic updation of the
> > > multicast/mirror list.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Suman Ghosh <sumang@marvell.com>
> > > Reviewed-by: Wojciech Drewek <wojciech.drewek@intel.com>
> > > Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>
> > 
> > Note that v5 was already applied to net-next. But I still have a
> > relevant note, see below.
> > 
> > > @@ -5797,3 +6127,337 @@ int
> > > rvu_mbox_handler_nix_bandprof_get_hwinfo(struct rvu *rvu, struct
> > > msg_req *re
> > > 
> > >  	return 0;
> > >  }
> > > +
> > > +static struct nix_mcast_grp_elem
> > > *rvu_nix_mcast_find_grp_elem(struct
> > nix_mcast_grp *mcast_grp,
> > > +							     
> > > u32 mcast_grp_idx)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct nix_mcast_grp_elem *iter;
> > > +	bool is_found = false;
> > > +
> > > +	mutex_lock(&mcast_grp->mcast_grp_lock);
> > > +	list_for_each_entry(iter, &mcast_grp->mcast_grp_head,
> > > list) {
> > > +		if (iter->mcast_grp_idx == mcast_grp_idx) {
> > > +			is_found = true;
> > > +			break;
> > > +		}
> > > +	}
> > > +	mutex_unlock(&mcast_grp->mcast_grp_lock);
> > 
> > AFAICS, at this point another thread/CPU could kick-in and run
> > rvu_mbox_handler_nix_mcast_grp_destroy() up to completion, freeing
> > 'iter' before it's later used by the current thread.
> > 
> > What prevents such scenario?
> > 
> > _If_ every mcast group manipulation happens under the rtnl lock,
> > then
> > you could as well completely remove the confusing mcast_grp_lock.
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > 
> > Paolo
> [Suman] I added this lock because, these requests can come from some
> user-space application also. In that case, application will send a
> mailbox to kernel toad/del
> Multicast nodes. But I got your point and there is indeed chances of
> race. Let me think through it and push a fix. So, what process should
> be followed here? Are you going to revert the change? Or I can push a
> separate fix on net tree?

You can push a follow-up fix.

We could end-up reverting the patch only if the fix will take too long
to land here, and the issue will start hitting people.

Cheers,

Paolo