Re: [PATCH 1/2] virtio_pci: Don't make an extra copy of cpu affinity mask

[Xuan Zhuo]

On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 13:26:49 +0200, Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 06:53 PM +08, Xuan Zhuo wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 10:17:19 +0200, Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 10:31 AM +08, Xuan Zhuo wrote:
> >> > On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 18:52:45 +0200, Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 08:55 PM +08, Xuan Zhuo wrote:
> >> >> > On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 12:16:24 +0200, Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >> >> Since commit 19e226e8cc5d ("virtio: Make vp_set_vq_affinity() take a
> >> >> >> mask.") it is actually not needed to have a local copy of the cpu mask.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Could you give more info to prove this?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Actually, my question is that can we pass a val on the stack(or temp value) to
> >> > the irq_set_affinity_hint()?
> >> >
> >> > Such as the virtio-net uses zalloc_cpumask_var to alloc a cpu_mask, and
> >> > that will be released.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > 	int __irq_apply_affinity_hint(unsigned int irq, const struct cpumask *m,
> >> > 				      bool setaffinity)
> >> > 	{
> >> > 		unsigned long flags;
> >> > 		struct irq_desc *desc = irq_get_desc_lock(irq, &flags, IRQ_GET_DESC_CHECK_GLOBAL);
> >> >
> >> > 		if (!desc)
> >> > 			return -EINVAL;
> >> > ->		desc->affinity_hint = m;
> >> > 		irq_put_desc_unlock(desc, flags);
> >> > 		if (m && setaffinity)
> >> > 			__irq_set_affinity(irq, m, false);
> >> > 		return 0;
> >> > 	}
> >> > 	EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__irq_apply_affinity_hint);
> >> >
> >> > The above code directly refers the mask pointer. If the mask is a temp value, I
> >> > think that is a bug.
> >>
> >> You are completely right. irq_set_affinity_hint stores the mask pointer.
> >> irq_affinity_hint_proc_show later dereferences it when user reads out
> >> /proc/irq/*/affinity_hint.
> >>
> >> I have failed to notice that. That's why we need cpumask_copy to stay.
> >>
> >> My patch is buggy. Please disregard.
> >>
> >> I will send a v2 to only migrate from deprecated irq_set_affinity_hint.
> >>
> >> > And I notice that many places directly pass the temp value to this API.
> >> > And I am a little confused. ^_^ Or I missed something.
> >>
> >> There seem two be two gropus of callers:
> >>
> >> 1. Those that use get_cpu_mask/cpumask_of/cpumask_of_node to produce a
> >>    cpumask pointer which is a preallocated constant.
> >>
> >>    $ weggli 'irq_set_affinity_hint(_, $func(_));' ~/src/linux
> >>
> >> 2. Those that pass a pointer to memory somewhere.
> >>
> >>    $ weggli 'irq_set_affinity_hint(_, $mask);' ~/src/linux
> >>
> >> (weggli tool can be found at https://github.com/weggli-rs/weggli)
> >>
> >> I've looked over the callers from group #2 but I couldn't find any
> >> passing a pointer memory on stack :-)
> >
> > Pls check stmmac_request_irq_multi_msi()
>
> Good catch. That one looks buggy.
>
> I should also checked for callers that take an address of a var/field:
>
>   $ weggli 'irq_set_affinity_hint(_, &$mask);' ~/src/linux

Do you find more?

Thanks.