netdev - Re: xfrm_state locking regression...

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 21 Sep 2008 18:21:27 +0300
From:	Timo Teräs <timo.teras@....fi>
To:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
CC:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: xfrm_state locking regression...

Timo Teräs wrote:
> Herbert Xu wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 05:25:13PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
>> I've avoided the memory barrier by simply extending the mutexed
>> section in the GC to cover the list splicing.  Here's the updated
>> patch:
>>
>> ipsec: Use RCU-like construct for saved state within a walk
>>
>> Now that we save states within a walk we need synchronisation
>> so that the list the saved state is on doesn't disappear from
>> under us.
>>
>> As it stands this is done by keeping the state on the list which
>> is bad because it gets in the way of the management of the state
>> life-cycle.
>>
>> An alternative is to make our own pseudo-RCU system where we use
>> counters to indicate which state can't be freed immediately as
>> it may be referenced by an ongoing walk when that resumes.
> 
> Does not this logic fail if:
> 1. completed = ongoing
> 2. 1st walk started and iterator kept (a->lastused = ongoing, ongoing++)
> 3. 2nd walk started and iterator kept (b->lastused = ongoing, ongoing++)
> 4. 2nd walk finished (completed++)
> 5. gc triggered: a gets deleted since a->lastused == completed
> 6. 1st walk continued but freed memory accessed as a was deleted
> 
> Though currently it does not affect, since xfrm_state_hold/_put
> are still called when keeping the iterator, so the entries won't
> actually get garbage collected anyway. So the completed/ongoing
> counting is basically useless. Or am I missing something?

Obviously I missed the fact that it prevents deletion of the entries
which the iterator held list node might still point to.

But the flaw still exists: the entries which interator->next points
can be deleted if there is a walking that takes a long time and
meanwhile we get walks that complete fast.

> Wouldn't it be enough to do the list_del_rcu on delete? And
> just keep reference as previously?

So if we do list_del_rcu() on delete, could we also xfrm_state_hold()
the entry pointed to by that list entry. And then on GC we could
xfrm_state_put() the next entry.

- Timo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html