netdev - Re: [patch net-next 11/17] ipv6: fib: Allow non-FIB users to take reference on route

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:   Wed, 19 Jul 2017 19:17:27 +0300
From:   Ido Schimmel <idosch@...lanox.com>
To:     David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
Cc:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        davem@...emloft.net, mlxsw@...lanox.com, roopa@...ulusnetworks.com,
        nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com, kafai@...com,
        hannes@...essinduktion.org, yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org,
        edumazet@...gle.com, yanhaishuang@...s.chinamobile.com
Subject: Re: [patch net-next 11/17] ipv6: fib: Allow non-FIB users to take
 reference on route

On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 09:49:37AM -0600, David Ahern wrote:
> On 7/19/17 1:02 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> > From: Ido Schimmel <idosch@...lanox.com>
> > 
> > Listeners of the FIB notification chain are expected to be able to take
> > and release a reference on notified IPv6 routes. This is needed in the
> > case of drivers capable of offloading these routes to a capable device.
> > 
> > Since notifications are sent in an atomic context, these drivers need to
> > take a reference on the route, prepare a work item to offload the route
> > and release the reference at the end of the work.
> > 
> > Currently, rt6i_ref is used to indicate in how many FIB nodes a route
> > appears. Different code paths rely on rt6i_ref being 0 to indicate the
> > route is no longer used by the FIB.
> > 
> > For example, whenever a route is deleted or replaced, fib6_purge_rt() is
> > run to make sure the route is no longer present in intermediate nodes. A
> > BUG_ON() at the end of the function is executed in case the reference
> > count isn't 1, as it's only supposed to appear in the non-intermediate
> > node from which it's going to be deleted.
> > 
> > Instead of changing the semantics of rt6i_ref, a new reference count is
> > added, so that external users could also take a reference on routes
> > without modifying rt6i_ref.
> > 
> > To make sure external users don't release routes used by the FIB, the
> > reference count is set to 1 upon creation of a route and decremented by
> > the FIB upon rt6_release().
> > 
> > The reference count is atomic, as it's not protected by any locks and
> > placed in the 40 bytes hole after the existing rt6i_ref.
> 
> I'd rather not add another reference counter. Debugging reference leaks
> is a huge PITA now; adding another counter just makes it worse.
> 
> Why can't the BUG_ON in fib6_purge_rt be removed since there are other
> reference holders now?

I did exactly that in the beginning, but it didn't sit right with me for
the exact reason you mentioned - it can be a PITA to debug.

If we use rt6i_ref for something other than FIB references, then it
breaks existing code that relies on rt6i_ref being 0 to indicate it's
no longer used by the FIB. A non-zero value can now mean "not used by
the FIB, but waiting for some module to drop the reference in its
workqueue".

The BUG_ON() mentioned in the commit message is just one example.
Another check was added by you in commit 8048ced9b.

So I think we both want the same thing, but I'm not sure how your
approach is safer.

Thanks