From: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 04:23:40 +0000 (+0200)
Subject: rculfhash: fix uniquely add vs cds_lfht_next observation semantic
X-Git-Tag: v0.7.0~43^2~80
X-Git-Url: http://git.liburcu.org/?p=urcu.git;a=commitdiff_plain;h=238cc06e5728e3a642d4d22bd4fc199cfd265110

rculfhash: fix uniquely add vs cds_lfht_next observation semantic

Is it a bug?

It depends.

Current code(a combination of add_replace and add_unique)
does never generate duplicated keys, but it only
guarantees snapshot semantic: If we take a snapshot of the
hash table, we can observe that there are no duplicated keys
in the snapshot.

But this definition don't work in practice, we don't take snapshot
before observe, we actually observe them one by one.
Example:

cds_lfht_lookup(&iter);
while (should_end(&iter)) {
	do_something_with(&iter);
	cds_lfht_next(&iter);
}

In the old code, we may do_something_with/observe 2 duplicate nodes
in this practice!

Here is an identical-hash-value node chain with no duplicated keys
-->[p1]-->[p2]-->[p3]-->[p4]-->

Now thread 1 is the observing thread, it is travelling and do
something with the nodes. thread 2 deletes [p1], thread 3
add_unique [p1'] with the same key as [p1]

thread 1		thread 2	thread 3
---------------------------------------------------
do something with [p1]
do something with [p2]
			delete [p1]
					uniquely add [p1']
	(-->[p2]-->[p3]-->[p4]-->[p1']-->)
do something with [p3]
do something with [p4]
do something with [p1']
---------------------------------------------------

Now, thread 1 unexpectly handles the same key twice.
It is BUG!

If we just provide snapshot semantic, it is not useful.

So we need to provide more strict add_replace/add_unique semantic.
1) no duplicated keys should ever be observable in the table(snapshot semantic)
2) no duplicated keys should ever be observed by forward iteration in the table.

The fix:
To provide forward-iteration-observation semantic, I ensure the new inserted
node(add_unique/add_replace) is inserted as the first node of
the identical-hash-value node chain.

A little another behavior is changed in this patch, we will no do gc in
cds_lfht_next_duplicate(), because it does need.

[ Note by Mathieu Desnoyers:

I agree that your semantic fix is needed for ensuring that cds_lfht_next
is semantically correct with add_unique semantic.

Just a note: the most important lookup/get next API semantic in my view
is the lookup + cds_lfht_next_duplicate, which is the typical use case
for looking up and node and getting all the duplicate keys.

Ideally, we want both get_next and get_next_duplicate to provide the
correct semantic.

I think the reason your fix here seems to work and not break the
behavior of cds_lfht_next_duplicate is because you only put nodes added
with add_unique at the beginning of the same-hash-value-chain. It's a
good thing that you don't try doing this for other add mode (allowing
duplicates), because cds_lfht_next_duplicate requires duplicate nodes to
be next one to another. And you patch keeps this behavior.

]

Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
---

diff --git a/rculfhash.c b/rculfhash.c
index 18a3cb8..b67acc8 100644
--- a/rculfhash.c
+++ b/rculfhash.c
@@ -894,22 +894,38 @@ void _cds_lfht_add(struct cds_lfht *ht,
 				goto insert;
 			if (likely(clear_flag(iter)->p.reverse_hash > node->p.reverse_hash))
 				goto insert;
+
 			/* dummy node is the first node of the identical-hash-value chain */
 			if (dummy && clear_flag(iter)->p.reverse_hash == node->p.reverse_hash)
 				goto insert;
+
 			next = rcu_dereference(clear_flag(iter)->p.next);
 			if (unlikely(is_removed(next)))
 				goto gc_node;
+
+			/* uniquely add */
 			if (unique_ret
 			    && !is_dummy(next)
-			    && clear_flag(iter)->p.reverse_hash == node->p.reverse_hash
-			    && !ht->compare_fct(node->key, node->key_len,
-						clear_flag(iter)->key,
-						clear_flag(iter)->key_len)) {
-				unique_ret->node = clear_flag(iter);
-				unique_ret->next = next;
+			    && clear_flag(iter)->p.reverse_hash == node->p.reverse_hash) {
+				struct cds_lfht_iter d_iter = { .node = node, .next = iter, };
+
+				/*
+				 * uniquely adding inserts the node as the first
+				 * node of the identical-hash-value node chain.
+				 *
+				 * This semantic ensures no duplicated keys
+				 * should ever be observable in the table
+				 * (including observe one node by one node
+				 * by forward iterations)
+				 */
+				cds_lfht_next_duplicate(ht, &d_iter);
+				if (!d_iter.node)
+					goto insert;
+
+				*unique_ret = d_iter;
 				return;
 			}
+
 			/* Only account for identical reverse hash once */
 			if (iter_prev->p.reverse_hash != clear_flag(iter)->p.reverse_hash
 			    && !is_dummy(next))