| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20090625193224.GC8852@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 12:32:24 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <jdb@...x.dk>
Cc: Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
dougthompson@...ssion.com, bluesmoke-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
axboe@...nel.dk, christine.caulfield@...glemail.com,
Trond.Myklebust@...app.com, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
johannes@...solutions.net, yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org,
shemminger@...ux-foundation.org, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
bfields@...ldses.org, neilb@...e.de, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
tytso@....edu, adilger@....com, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 10/10] nf_conntrack: Use rcu_barrier() and fix
kmem_cache_create flags
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 11:29:13AM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 15:58 +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> > Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> > > Adjusting SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU flags.
> > >
> > > kmem_cache_create("nf_conntrack", ...) does not need the
> > > SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU flag.
> >
> > It does need it. We're using it instead of call_rcu() for conntracks.
> >
> > > But the
> > > kmem_cache_create("nf_conntrack_expect", ...) should use the
> > > SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU flag, because it uses a call_rcu() callback to
> > > invoke kmem_cache_free().
> >
> > No, using call_rcu() means we don't need SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU.
> > Please see the note in include/linux/slab.h.
>
> Oh, I see. The description is some what cryptic, but I think I got it,
> after reading through the code.
>
> BUT this still means that we need to do rcu_barrier() if the
> SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU is NOT set and we do call_rcu() our self.
>
> Look at: slab.c kmem_cache_destroy()
>
> void kmem_cache_destroy(struct kmem_cache *cachep)
> {
> ...<cut>...
> if (__cache_shrink(cachep)) {
> slab_error(cachep, "Can't free all objects");
> ...<cut>...
> return;
> }
>
> if (unlikely(cachep->flags & SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU))
> synchronize_rcu();
>
> __kmem_cache_destroy(cachep);
> ...<cut>...
> }
>
> My understanding for the code is (please feel free to correct me): that
> if SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU _is_ set, then the __cache_shrink() call will
> call drain_freelist(), which calls slab_destroy().
>
> If SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU _is_ set, then slab_destroy() will then start a
> call_rcu() callback to kmem_rcu_free() which calls kmem_cache_free().
> Given that the callback code kmem_rcu_free() is not removed, we are not
> worried about unloading the module at this point.
>
> I'm a bit worried about what happens if __kmem_cache_destroy() is
> invoked and there is still callbacks for kmem_rcu_free() in flight?
> The synchronize_rcu() between __cache_shrink() and
> __kmem_cache_destroy() should perhaps be changed to rcu_barrier()?
It looks to me like it should, good catch!!! I sent a proposed patch
to the maintainers.
Thanx, Paul
> But I'm sure that the SLAB/MM guys will tell me that this case is
> handled (and something about its unlinked from the appropiate
> lists)??? ;-)
>
>
> > > RCU barriers, rcu_barrier(), is inserted two places.
> > >
> > > In nf_conntrack_expect.c nf_conntrack_expect_fini() before the
> > > kmem_cache_destroy(), even though the use of the SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU
> > > flag, because slub does not (currently) handle rcu sync correctly.
> >
> > I think that should be fixed in slub then.
>
> I don't think so, we/I'm are talking about "nf_conntrack_expect" and not
> "nf_conntrack" slab. Clearly the slab "nf_conntrack" is handled
> correcly (according to description above).
>
> We still need to make sure the callbacks for "nf_conntrack_expect", are
> done before unloading/removing the code they are about to call.
>
>
> > > And in nf_conntrack_extend.c nf_ct_extend_unregister(), inorder to
> > > wait for completion of callbacks to __nf_ct_ext_free_rcu(), which is
> > > invoked by __nf_ct_ext_add(). It might be more efficient to call
> > > rcu_barrier() in nf_conntrack_core.c nf_conntrack_cleanup_net(), but
> > > thats make it more difficult to read the code (as the callback code
> > > in located in nf_conntrack_extend.c).
> >
> > This one looks fine.
>
> Should I make two different patchs?
>
>
> > > diff --git a/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core.c b/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core.c
> > > index 5f72b94..438ce84 100644
> > > --- a/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core.c
> > > +++ b/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core.c
> > > @@ -1242,7 +1242,7 @@ static int nf_conntrack_init_init_net(void)
> > >
> > > nf_conntrack_cachep = kmem_cache_create("nf_conntrack",
> > > sizeof(struct nf_conn),
> > > - 0, SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU, NULL);
> > > + 0, 0, NULL);
> > > if (!nf_conntrack_cachep) {
> > > printk(KERN_ERR "Unable to create nf_conn slab cache\n");
> > > ret = -ENOMEM;
> > > diff --git a/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_expect.c b/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_expect.c
> > > index afde8f9..56227c2 100644
> > > --- a/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_expect.c
> > > +++ b/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_expect.c
> > > @@ -593,7 +593,7 @@ int nf_conntrack_expect_init(struct net *net)
> > > if (net_eq(net, &init_net)) {
> > > nf_ct_expect_cachep = kmem_cache_create("nf_conntrack_expect",
> > > sizeof(struct nf_conntrack_expect),
> > > - 0, 0, NULL);
> > > + 0, SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU, NULL);
> > > if (!nf_ct_expect_cachep)
> > > goto err2;
> > > }
> > > @@ -617,8 +617,15 @@ err1:
> > > void nf_conntrack_expect_fini(struct net *net)
> > > {
> > > exp_proc_remove(net);
> > > - if (net_eq(net, &init_net))
> > > + if (net_eq(net, &init_net)) {
> > > + /* hawk@...x.dk 2009-06-24: The rcu_barrier() can be
> > > + * removed once the sl*b allocators has been fixed
> > > + * regarding handling the SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU flag
> > > + * correctly.
> > > + */
> > > + rcu_barrier(); /* Wait for call_rcu() before destroy */
> > > kmem_cache_destroy(nf_ct_expect_cachep);
> > > + }
> > > nf_ct_free_hashtable(net->ct.expect_hash, net->ct.expect_vmalloc,
> > > nf_ct_expect_hsize);
> > > }
> > > diff --git a/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_extend.c b/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_extend.c
> > > index 4b2c769..fef95be 100644
> > > --- a/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_extend.c
> > > +++ b/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_extend.c
> > > @@ -186,6 +186,6 @@ void nf_ct_extend_unregister(struct nf_ct_ext_type *type)
> > > rcu_assign_pointer(nf_ct_ext_types[type->id], NULL);
> > > update_alloc_size(type);
> > > mutex_unlock(&nf_ct_ext_type_mutex);
> > > - synchronize_rcu();
> > > + rcu_barrier(); /* Wait for completion of call_rcu()'s */
> > > }
> > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(nf_ct_extend_unregister);
> > >
> >
> --
> Med venlig hilsen / Best regards
> Jesper Brouer
> ComX Networks A/S
> Linux Network developer
> Cand. Scient Datalog / MSc.
> Author of http://adsl-optimizer.dk
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists