linux-kernel - Re: [BUG] Bug in netprio_cgroup and netcls

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, 21 Jan 2013 01:21:23 -0800
From:	John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
To:	Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>
CC:	Daniel Wagner <wagi@...om.org>,
	John Fastabend <john.r.fastabend@...el.com>,
	Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>,
	Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@...-carit.de>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [BUG] Bug in netprio_cgroup and netcls_cgroup ?

On 01/21/2013 01:01 AM, Li Zefan wrote:
> On 2013/1/21 16:50, Daniel Wagner wrote:
>> Hi Li,
>>
>> On 21.01.2013 07:08, Li Zefan wrote:
>>> I'm not a network developer, so correct me if I'm wrong.
>>>
>>> Since commit 7955490f732c2b8
>>> ("net: netprio_cgroup: rework update socket logic"), sock->sk->sk_cgrp_prioidx
>>> is set when the socket is created, and won't be updated unless the task is
>>> moved to another cgroup.
>>>
>>> Now the problem is, a socket can be _shared_ by multiple processes (fork, SCM_RIGHT).
>>> If we place those processes in different cgroups, and each cgroup has
>>> different configs, but all of the processes will send data via this socket
>>> with the same network priority.
>>
>> Wouldn't that be addressed by 48a87cc26c13b68f6cce4e9d769fcb17a6b3e4b8
>>
>>     net: netprio: fd passed in SCM_RIGHTS datagram not set correctly
>>
>>      A socket fd passed in a SCM_RIGHTS datagram was not getting
>>      updated with the new tasks cgrp prioidx. This leaves IO on
>>      the socket tagged with the old tasks priority.
>>
>>      To fix this add a check in the scm recvmsg path to update the
>>      sock cgrp prioidx with the new tasks value.
>>
>> As I read this this should work for net_prio.
>>
> 
> But after process A passed the socket fd to B, both A and B can use the
> same socket to send data, right? Then if A and B were placed in different
> cgroups with differnt configs, A's config won't take effect anymore.
> 
> Am I missing something?
> 
> 

Hi Zefan,

Neil and I discusses this here, http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/172343/
look towards the bottom of the thread. Quoted here.

>> I like the idea, but IIRC last time we tried this I think it caused problems
>> with processes that shared sockets.  That is to say, if you have a parent and
>> child process that dup an socket descriptior, and put them in separate cgroups,
>> you get unpredictable results, as the socket gets assigned a priority based on
>> the last processed that moved cgroups.
>>
>> Neil
>>
> 
> Shared sockets creates strange behavior as it exists today. If a dup
> of the socket fd is created the private data is still shared right. So
> in this case the sk_cgrp_prioidx value is going to get updated by both
> threads and then it is a race to see what it happens to be set to in
> the xmit path.
> 
> With this patch at least the behavior is deterministic. Without it
> I can create the above scenario but have no way to determine what the
> skb priority will actually be set to.
> 

Its unfortunate but I'm not sure how to fix it off hand with the shared
value
in the socket.

.John

-- 
John Fastabend         Intel Corporation
--
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/