From: Vitaliy Makkoveev Subject: Re: Please test: shared solock for all intet sockets within knote(9) routines To: Alexander Bluhm Cc: tech@openbsd.org Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2024 22:25:14 +0300 On Sun, Jan 28, 2024 at 12:54:24PM +0100, Alexander Bluhm wrote: > On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 07:59:02PM +0300, Vitaliy Makkoveev wrote: > > Not for commit yet, but could be interesting. The idea is the same as > > for PCB layer: take shared netlock and exclusive `so_lock' to serialize > > access to the socket. The tcp(4) sockets permit this because knote(9) > > routines do read-only access to sockets. > > Passes regress with witness. > > OK bluhm@ > > > Should provide some additional performance. > > My setup is currently busy with some other test run. > Can do performance comparison in a few days. Thanks for attention. Unfortunately current soassertlocked() is very dumb for inet case: soassertlocked(struct socket *so) { switch (so->so_proto->pr_domain->dom_family) { case PF_INET: case PF_INET6: NET_ASSERT_LOCKED(); break; default: rw_assert_wrlock(&so->so_lock); break; } } Could we update it first and check `so_lock' state for shared netlock case? Since we already use solock_shared(), I want to raise assertion instead of panic. Index: sys/kern/uipc_socket2.c =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/kern/uipc_socket2.c,v retrieving revision 1.140 diff -u -p -r1.140 uipc_socket2.c --- sys/kern/uipc_socket2.c 11 Jan 2024 14:15:11 -0000 1.140 +++ sys/kern/uipc_socket2.c 28 Jan 2024 19:18:48 -0000 @@ -444,7 +444,14 @@ soassertlocked(struct socket *so) switch (so->so_proto->pr_domain->dom_family) { case PF_INET: case PF_INET6: - NET_ASSERT_LOCKED(); + if (rw_status(&netlock) == RW_READ) { + NET_ASSERT_LOCKED(); + + if (splassert_ctl > 0 && + rw_status(&so->so_lock) != RW_WRITE) + splassert_fail(0, RW_WRITE, __func__); + } else + NET_ASSERT_LOCKED_EXCLUSIVE(); break; default: rw_assert_wrlock(&so->so_lock);