IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO GET AN ACCOUNT, please write an
email to Administrator. User accounts are meant only to access repo
and report issues and/or generate pull requests.
This is a purpose-specific Git hosting for
BaseALT
projects. Thank you for your understanding!
Только зарегистрированные пользователи имеют доступ к сервису!
Для получения аккаунта, обратитесь к администратору.
All the routines by which rxrpc is accessed from the outside are serialised
by means of the socket lock (sendmsg, recvmsg, bind,
rxrpc_kernel_begin_call(), ...) and this presents a problem:
(1) If a number of calls on the same socket are in the process of
connection to the same peer, a maximum of four concurrent live calls
are permitted before further calls need to wait for a slot.
(2) If a call is waiting for a slot, it is deep inside sendmsg() or
rxrpc_kernel_begin_call() and the entry function is holding the socket
lock.
(3) sendmsg() and recvmsg() or the in-kernel equivalents are prevented
from servicing the other calls as they need to take the socket lock to
do so.
(4) The socket is stuck until a call is aborted and makes its slot
available to the waiter.
Fix this by:
(1) Provide each call with a mutex ('user_mutex') that arbitrates access
by the users of rxrpc separately for each specific call.
(2) Make rxrpc_sendmsg() and rxrpc_recvmsg() unlock the socket as soon as
they've got a call and taken its mutex.
Note that I'm returning EWOULDBLOCK from recvmsg() if MSG_DONTWAIT is
set but someone else has the lock. Should I instead only return
EWOULDBLOCK if there's nothing currently to be done on a socket, and
sleep in this particular instance because there is something to be
done, but we appear to be blocked by the interrupt handler doing its
ping?
(3) Make rxrpc_new_client_call() unlock the socket after allocating a new
call, locking its user mutex and adding it to the socket's call tree.
The call is returned locked so that sendmsg() can add data to it
immediately.
From the moment the call is in the socket tree, it is subject to
access by sendmsg() and recvmsg() - even if it isn't connected yet.
(4) Lock new service calls in the UDP data_ready handler (in
rxrpc_new_incoming_call()) because they may already be in the socket's
tree and the data_ready handler makes them live immediately if a user
ID has already been preassigned.
Note that the new call is locked before any notifications are sent
that it is live, so doing mutex_trylock() *ought* to always succeed.
Userspace is prevented from doing sendmsg() on calls that are in a
too-early state in rxrpc_do_sendmsg().
(5) Make rxrpc_new_incoming_call() return the call with the user mutex
held so that a ping can be scheduled immediately under it.
Note that it might be worth moving the ping call into
rxrpc_new_incoming_call() and then we can drop the mutex there.
(6) Make rxrpc_accept_call() take the lock on the call it is accepting and
release the socket after adding the call to the socket's tree. This
is slightly tricky as we've dequeued the call by that point and have
to requeue it.
Note that requeuing emits a trace event.
(7) Make rxrpc_kernel_send_data() and rxrpc_kernel_recv_data() take the
new mutex immediately and don't bother with the socket mutex at all.
This patch has the nice bonus that calls on the same socket are now to some
extent parallelisable.
Note that we might want to move rxrpc_service_prealloc() calls out from the
socket lock and give it its own lock, so that we don't hang progress in
other calls because we're waiting for the allocator.
We probably also want to avoid calling rxrpc_notify_socket() from within
the socket lock (rxrpc_accept_call()).
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Tested-by: Marc Dionne <marc.c.dionne@auristor.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
540b1c48c3