netdev - Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] sctp: rcu-ify addr

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:	Mon, 8 Jun 2015 11:19:55 -0400
From:	Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
To:	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
Cc:	mleitner@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
	Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@...il.com>,
	Michio Honda <micchie@....wide.ad.jp>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] sctp: rcu-ify addr_waitq

On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 04:59:18PM +0200, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015, at 16:46, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> > Hi Marcelo,
> > 
> > a few hints on rcuification, sorry I reviewed the code so late:
> > 
> > On Fri, Jun 5, 2015, at 19:08, mleitner@...hat.com wrote:
> > > From: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>
> > > 
> > > That's needed for the next patch, so we break the lock inversion between
> > > netns_sctp->addr_wq_lock and socket lock on
> > > sctp_addr_wq_timeout_handler(). With this, we can traverse addr_waitq
> > > without taking addr_wq_lock, taking it just for the write operations.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>
> > > ---
> > > 
> > > Notes:
> > >     v2->v3:
> > >       placed break statement on sctp_free_addr_wq_entry()
> > >       removed unnecessary spin_lock noticed by Neil
> > > 
> > >  include/net/netns/sctp.h |  2 +-
> > >  net/sctp/protocol.c      | 80
> > >  +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
> > >  2 files changed, 49 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/include/net/netns/sctp.h b/include/net/netns/sctp.h
> > > index
> > > 3573a81815ad9e0efb6ceb721eb066d3726419f0..9e53412c4ed829e8e45777a6d95406d490dbaa75
> > > 100644
> > > --- a/include/net/netns/sctp.h
> > > +++ b/include/net/netns/sctp.h
> > > @@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ struct netns_sctp {
> > >  	 * It is a list of sctp_sockaddr_entry.
> > >  	 */
> > >  	struct list_head local_addr_list;
> > > -       struct list_head addr_waitq;
> > > +       struct list_head __rcu addr_waitq;
> > >  	struct timer_list addr_wq_timer;
> > >  	struct list_head auto_asconf_splist;
> > >  	spinlock_t addr_wq_lock;
> > > diff --git a/net/sctp/protocol.c b/net/sctp/protocol.c
> > > index
> > > 53b7acde9aa37bf3d4029c459421564d5270f4c0..9954fb8c9a9455d5ad7a627e2d7f9a1fef861fc2
> > > 100644
> > > --- a/net/sctp/protocol.c
> > > +++ b/net/sctp/protocol.c
> > > @@ -593,15 +593,47 @@ static void sctp_v4_ecn_capable(struct sock *sk)
> > >  	INET_ECN_xmit(sk);
> > >  }
> > >  
> > > +static void sctp_free_addr_wq(struct net *net)
> > > +{
> > > +       struct sctp_sockaddr_entry *addrw;
> > > +
> > > +       spin_lock_bh(&net->sctp.addr_wq_lock);
> > 
> > Instead of holding spin_lock_bh you need to hold rcu_read_lock_bh, so
> > kfree_rcu does not call free function at once (in theory ;) ).
> > 
> > > +       del_timer(&net->sctp.addr_wq_timer);
> > > +       list_for_each_entry_rcu(addrw, &net->sctp.addr_waitq, list) {
> > > +               list_del_rcu(&addrw->list);
> > > +               kfree_rcu(addrw, rcu);
> > > +       }
> > > +       spin_unlock_bh(&net->sctp.addr_wq_lock);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +/* As there is no refcnt on sctp_sockaddr_entry, we must check inside
> > > + * the lock if it wasn't removed from addr_waitq already, otherwise we
> > > + * could double-free it.
> > > + */
> > > +static void sctp_free_addr_wq_entry(struct net *net,
> > > +                                   struct sctp_sockaddr_entry *addrw)
> > > +{
> > > +       struct sctp_sockaddr_entry *temp;
> > > +
> > > +       spin_lock_bh(&net->sctp.addr_wq_lock);
> > 
> > I don't think this spin_lock operation is needed. The del_timer
> > functions do synchronize themselves.
> > 
> 
> Sorry, those above two locks are needed, they are not implied by other
> locks.
> 
What makes you say that? Multiple contexts can issue mod_timer calls on the
same timer safely no, because of the internal locking?

Neil

> Bye,
> Hannes
> 
--
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