linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net RESEND] vlan: don't allow to add VLAN on VLAN device

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <53167E62.4020601@huawei.com>
Date:	Wed, 5 Mar 2014 09:31:14 +0800
From:	Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@...wei.com>
To:	Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>,
	John Fastabend <john.r.fastabend@...el.com>
CC:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net RESEND] vlan: don't allow to add VLAN on VLAN device

On 2014/3/5 8:10, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 19:45 -0800, John Fastabend wrote:
>> On 2/27/2014 6:43 PM, Ding Tianhong wrote:
>>> I run these steps:
>>>
>>> modprobe 8021q
>>> vconfig add eth2 20
>>> vconfig add eth2.20 20
>>> ifconfig eth2 xx.xx.xx.xx
>>>
>>> then the Call Trace happened:
>>>
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> ========================================================================
>>>
>>> The reason is that if add vlan on vlan dev, the vlan dev will create vlan_info,
>>> then the notification will let the real dev to run dev_set_rx_mode() and hold
>>> netif_addr_lock, and then the real dev will call ndo_set_rx_mode(), if the real
>>> dev is vlan dev, the ndo_set_rx_mode() will hold netif_addr_lock again, so deadlock
>>> happened.
>>>
>>> Don't allow to add vlan on vlan dev to fix this problem.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@...wei.com>
>>> ---
>>
>> I'm not sure we can just disable stacked vlans. There might be something
>> using them today and they have worked in the past. Lets try to find a
>> better fix.
> 
> I don't think there's any deadlock possible here.  We try to acquire the
> addr_list_lock for eth2.20, then the addr_list_lock for eth2.  We never
> try to acquire them in the opposite order.  The fix would involve
> telling lockdep about lock ordering between stacked net_devices (I have
> no idea how that's done).
> 
> Ben.
> 

Yep, it is a warning when the lockdep is open, I review the code again, and the deadlock would not happen,
just the same class of locks twice, so I think it is not a bugfix, just like a optimization.

Regards
Ding


--
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/