Re: [PATCH 2/2] ethdev: fix the race condition for fp ops reset

[Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>]

On 10/23/2021 12:39 PM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> 
> 
>> 22/10/2021 23:14, Bing Zhao:
>>> In the function "eth_dev_fp_ops_reset", a structure assignment
>>> operation is used to reset one queue's callback functions, etc., but
>>> it is not thread safe.
>>>
>>> The structure assignment is not atomic, a lot of instructions will
>>> be generated. Right now, since not all the fields are needed, the
>>> fields in the "dummy_ops" which is not set explicitly will be 0s
>>> based on the specification and compiler behavior. In order to make
>>> "fpo" has the same content with "dummy_ops", some clearing to 0
>>> operation is needed.
>>>
>>> By checking the object instructions (e.g. with GCC 4.8.5)
>>>     0x0000000000a58317 <+35>:	mov    %rsi,%rdi
>>>     0x0000000000a5831a <+38>:	mov    %rdx,%rcx
>>> => 0x0000000000a5831d <+41>:	rep stos %rax,%es:(%rdi)
>>>     0x0000000000a58320 <+44>:	mov    -0x38(%rsp),%rax
>>>     0x0000000000a58325 <+49>:	lea    -0xe0(%rip),%rdx
>>>          // # 0xa5824c <dummy_eth_rx_burst>
>>>
>>> It shows that "rep stos" will clear the "fpo" structure before
>>> assigning new values.
>>>
>>> In the other thread, if some data path Tx / Rx functions are still
>>> running, there is a risk to get 0 instead of the correct dummy
>>> content.
>>>    1. qd = p->rxq.data[queue_id]
>>>    2. (void **)&p->rxq.clbk[queue_id]
>>> "data" and "clbk" may be observed with NULL (0) in other threads.
>>> Even it is temporary, the accessing to a NULL pointer will cause a
>>> crash. Using "memcpy" could get rid of this.
>>>
>>> Fixes: c87d435a4d79 ("ethdev: copy fast-path API into separate structure")
>>> Cc: konstantin.ananyev@intel.com
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Bing Zhao <bingz@nvidia.com>
>>> ---
>>> --- a/lib/ethdev/ethdev_private.c
>>> +++ b/lib/ethdev/ethdev_private.c
>>> @@ -206,7 +206,7 @@ eth_dev_fp_ops_reset(struct rte_eth_fp_ops *fpo)
>>>   		.txq = {.data = dummy_data, .clbk = dummy_data,},
>>>   	};
>>>
>>> -	*fpo = dummy_ops;
>>> +	rte_memcpy(fpo, &dummy_ops, sizeof(struct rte_eth_fp_ops));
>>
>> That's not trivial.
>> Please add a comment to briefly explain that memcpy avoids zeroing of a simple assignment.
>>
> 
> I think that patch is based on two totally wrong assumptions:
> 1) ethdev data-path and control-path API is MT-safe.
>      With current design it is not.
>      When calling rx/tx_burst it is caller responsibility to make sure that given port is
>      already properly configured and started. Also it is user responsibility to guarantee
>      that none other thread doing dev_stop for the same port simultaneously.
>      And visa-versa when calling dev_stop(), it is user responsibility to ensure that
>      none other thread doing rx/tx_burst for given port simultaneously.
>      If your app doesn't follow these principles, then it is a bug that needs to be fixed.
> 2) rte_memcpy() provides some sort of atomicity and it is safe to use it on its own
>      in MT environment. That's totally wrong.
>      In both cases compiler has total freedom to perform copy in any order it likes
>      (let say it can first read whole source data in some temporary buffer (SIMD register),
>      and then right it in one go, or it can do the same trick with 'rep stos' as above).
>      Moreover CPU itself can reorder instructions.
>      So if you need this copy to be atomic you need to use some sort of
>      sync primitives along with it (mutex, rwlock, rcu, etc.).
>      But as I said above right now ethdev API is not MT-safe, so it is not required.
>   
> To summarise - there is no point to mae these changes,
> and patch comment is wrong and misleading.

Can we mark this patch as rejected now?

Patch seems trying to cover a wrong application usage, and it should
be addressed in the application level.