netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 net] bonding: don't use stale speed and duplex information

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, 25 Feb 2016 16:35:18 +0800
From:	zhuyj <zyjzyj2000@...il.com>
To:	Jay Vosburgh <jay.vosburgh@...onical.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	"Tantilov, Emil S" <emil.s.tantilov@...el.com>
Cc:	Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...il.com>,
	dingtianhong <dingtianhong@...wei.com>,
	Andy Gospodarek <gospo@...ulusnetworks.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net] bonding: don't use stale speed and duplex
 information

On 02/09/2016 04:10 AM, Jay Vosburgh wrote:
> 	There is presently a race condition between the bonding periodic
> link monitor and the updating of a slave's speed and duplex.  The former
> occurs on a periodic basis, and the latter in response to a driver's
> calling of netif_carrier_on.
>
> 	It is possible for the periodic monitor to run between the
> driver call of netif_carrier_on and the receipt of the NETDEV_CHANGE
> event that causes bonding to update the slave's speed and duplex.  This
> manifests most notably as a report that a slave is up and "0 Mbps full
> duplex" after enslavement, but in principle could report an incorrect
> speed and duplex after any link up event if the device comes up with a
> different speed or duplex.  This affects the 802.3ad aggregator
> selection, as the speed and duplex are selection criteria.
>
> 	This is fixed by updating the speed and duplex in the periodic
> monitor, prior to using that information.
>
> 	This was done historically in bonding, but the call to
> bond_update_speed_duplex was removed in commit 876254ae2758 ("bonding:
> don't call update_speed_duplex() under spinlocks"), as it might sleep
> under lock.  Later, the locking was changed to only hold RTNL, and so
> after commit 876254ae2758 ("bonding: don't call update_speed_duplex()
> under spinlocks") this call is again safe.
>
> Tested-by: "Tantilov, Emil S" <emil.s.tantilov@...el.com>
> Cc: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...il.com>
> Cc: dingtianhong <dingtianhong@...wei.com>
> Fixes: 876254ae2758 ("bonding: don't call update_speed_duplex() under spinlocks")
> Signed-off-by: Jay Vosburgh <jay.vosburgh@...onical.com>
>
> ---
>
> v2: Correct Veaceslav's email address
>
> Note: The "Fixes" commit is the commit that makes this operation safe
> again, not the commit that originally introduced the race.  I don't see
> any simple way to resolve this bug between these two commits.
>
>   drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c | 1 +
>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
> index 56b560558884..cabaeb61333d 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
> @@ -2127,6 +2127,7 @@ static void bond_miimon_commit(struct bonding *bond)
>   			continue;
>   
>   		case BOND_LINK_UP:
> +			bond_update_speed_duplex(slave);
>   			bond_set_slave_link_state(slave, BOND_LINK_UP,
>   						  BOND_SLAVE_NOTIFY_NOW);
>   			slave->last_link_up = jiffies;
Hi, Jay

Thanks for your patch.

I delved into the source code and Emil's tests. I think that the problem
that this patch expects to fix occurs very unusually.

Do you agree with me?

If so, maybe the following patch can reduce the performance loss.
Please comment on it. Thanks a lot.


diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c 
b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
index b7f1a99..c4c511a 100644
--- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
+++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
@@ -2129,7 +2129,9 @@ static void bond_miimon_commit(struct bonding *bond)
                         continue;

                 case BOND_LINK_UP:
-                       bond_update_speed_duplex(slave);
+                       if (slave->speed == SPEED_UNKNOWN)
+                               bond_update_speed_duplex(slave);
+
                         bond_set_slave_link_state(slave, BOND_LINK_UP,
BOND_SLAVE_NOTIFY_NOW);
                         slave->last_link_up = jiffies;

Best Regards!
Zhu Yanjun