linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/5] can: af_can.c use rcu

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, 08 Jun 2009 19:00:10 +0200
From:	Oliver Hartkopp <oliver@...tkopp.net>
To:	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
CC:	Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...x.dk>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, urs.thuermann@...kswagen.de,
	oliver.hartkopp@...kswagen.de, wg@...ndegger.com,
	vladislav.yasevich@...com, sri@...ibm.com,
	linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org, Trond.Myklebust@...app.com,
	linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] can: af_can.c use rcu_barrier() on module unload.

Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 03:11:38PM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
>> This module uses rcu_call() thus it should use rcu_barrier()
>> on module unload.
> 
> This does appear to make things better!!!
> 
> However, I don't understand why it is safe to do the following in
> can_exit():
> 
> 	hlist_for_each_entry_safe(d, n, next, &can_rx_dev_list, list) {
> 		hlist_del(&d->list);
> 		kfree(d);
> 	}
> 
> Given that this list is scanned by RCU readers, shouldn't this kfree()
> be something like "call_rcu(&d->rcu, can_rx_delete_device);"?
> 
> Also, what frees up the "struct receiver" structures?

Hi Paul,

af_can.c only provides an infrastructure for PF_CAN modules like can-raw.ko,
can-bcm.ko or can-isotp.ko.

Please take a look into can_notifier() in net/can/af_can.c and raw_notifier()
in net/can/raw.c:

The receivers are removed when the appropriate socket is closed that created
the belonging receivers. And you can not remove can.ko (af_can.c) when another
PF_CAN protocol like can-raw.ko is using it.

So when a netdev notifier removes the interface both the PF_CAN protocol (e.g.
can-raw.ko) and the PF_CAN core (af_can.c) cleans up all receivers and finally
removes the per-interface structure dev_rcv_lists (e.g. for can0).

In can_exit() all the dev_rcv_lists for ARPHRD_CAN interfaces are removed that
had been created by NETDEV_REGISTER notifier and are unused by any of the
PF_CAN protocols and therefore without any receivers attached to them.

The list is protected by spin_lock(&can_rcvlists_lock) - which is probably not
even needed in this particular case - and there is no PF_CAN protocol
registered at this time. So it's really save to remove the empty dev_rcv_lists
structs here that do not link to any receivers.

Puh - much text. But i hope it clarifies it.

Thinking about the rcu stuff again, rcu_barrier() still makes sense when you
are unloading the module chain of can-raw.ko and can.ko very fast.

Regards,
Oliver

>> Signed-off-by: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...x.dk>
>> ---
>>
>>  net/can/af_can.c |    2 ++
>>  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/net/can/af_can.c b/net/can/af_can.c
>> index 10f0528..e733725 100644
>> --- a/net/can/af_can.c
>> +++ b/net/can/af_can.c
>> @@ -903,6 +903,8 @@ static __exit void can_exit(void)
>>  	}
>>  	spin_unlock(&can_rcvlists_lock);
>>
>> +	rcu_barrier(); /* Wait for completion of call_rcu()'s */
>> +
>>  	kmem_cache_destroy(rcv_cache);
>>  }
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/