netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] pppoatm: protect against freeing of vcc

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Thu, 29 Nov 2012 11:57:15 +0100
From:	Krzysztof Mazur <krzysiek@...lesie.net>
To:	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
Cc:	David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
	chas williams - CONTRACTOR <chas@....nrl.navy.mil>,
	davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, nathan@...verse.com.au
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] pppoatm: protect against freeing of vcc

On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 10:18:35PM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-11-28 at 09:21 +0000, David Laight wrote:
> > Even when it might make sense to sleep in close until tx drains
> > there needs to be a finite timeout before it become abortive.
> 
> You are, of course, right. We should never wait for hardware for ever.
> And just to serve me right, I seem to have hit a bug in the latest Solos
> firmware (1.11) which makes it sometimes lock up when I reboot. So it
> never responds to the PKT_PCLOSE packet... and thus it deadlocks when I
> try to kill pppd and unload the module to reset it :)
> 
> New version...
> 
> From 53dd01c08fec5b26006a009b25e4210127fdb27a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: David Woodhouse <David.Woodhouse@...el.com>
> Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 23:49:24 +0000
> Subject: [PATCH] solos-pci: Wait for pending TX to complete when releasing
>  vcc
> 
> We should no longer be calling the old pop routine for the vcc, after
> vcc_release() has completed. Make sure we wait for any pending TX skbs
> to complete, by waiting for our own PKT_PCLOSE control skb to be sent.
> 
> Signed-off-by: David Woodhouse <David.Woodhouse@...el.com>
> ---
>  drivers/atm/solos-pci.c | 17 +++++++++++++++--
>  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/atm/solos-pci.c b/drivers/atm/solos-pci.c
> index 9851093..3720670 100644
> --- a/drivers/atm/solos-pci.c
> +++ b/drivers/atm/solos-pci.c
> @@ -92,6 +92,7 @@ struct pkt_hdr {
>  };
>  
>  struct solos_skb_cb {
> +	struct completion c;
>  	struct atm_vcc *vcc;
>  	uint32_t dma_addr;
>  };
> @@ -881,11 +882,18 @@ static void pclose(struct atm_vcc *vcc)
>  	header->vci = cpu_to_le16(vcc->vci);
>  	header->type = cpu_to_le16(PKT_PCLOSE);
>  
> +	init_completion(&SKB_CB(skb)->c);
> +
>  	fpga_queue(card, SOLOS_CHAN(vcc->dev), skb, NULL);
>  
>  	clear_bit(ATM_VF_ADDR, &vcc->flags);
>  	clear_bit(ATM_VF_READY, &vcc->flags);
>  
> +	if (!wait_for_completion_timeout(&SKB_CB(skb)->c,
> +					 jiffies + msecs_to_jiffies(5000)))
> +		dev_warn(&card->dev->dev, "Timeout waiting for VCC close on port %d\n",
> +			 SOLOS_CHAN(vcc->dev));
> +

do we really need to wait here?

Why don't just do something like that:

	tasklet_disable(&card->tlet);
	spin_lock(&card->tx_queue_lock);
	for each skb in queue
		SKB_CB(skb)->vcc = NULL;
	spin_unlock(&card->tx_queue_lock);
	tasklet_enable(&card->tlet);

or if we really want to call vcc->pop() for such skbs:

	tasklet_disable(&card->tlet);
	spin_lock(&card->tx_queue_lock);
	for each skb in queue {
		skb_get(skb);
		solos_pop(SKB_CB(skb)->vcc, skb);
		SKB_CB(skb)->vcc = NULL;
	}
	spin_unlock(&card->tx_queue_lock);
	tasklet_enable(&card->tlet);

Krzysiek
--
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