linux-kernel - [PATCH net-next] rhashtable: Lower/upper bucket may map to same lock while shrinking

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]

Message-ID: <20150112235821.GB16617@casper.infradead.org>
Date:	Mon, 12 Jan 2015 23:58:21 +0000
From:	Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>
To:	davem@...emloft.net, Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Cc:	LKP <lkp@...org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, coreteam@...filter.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH net-next] rhashtable: Lower/upper bucket may map to same lock
 while shrinking

Each per bucket lock covers a configurable number of buckets. While
shrinking, two buckets in the old table contain entries for a single
bucket in the new table. We need to lock down both while linking.
Check if they are protected by different locks to avoid a recursive
lock.

Fixes: 97defe1e ("rhashtable: Per bucket locks & deferred expansion/shrinking")
Reported-by: Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>
---
 lib/rhashtable.c | 15 ++++++++++++---
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/lib/rhashtable.c b/lib/rhashtable.c
index 8023b55..45477f7 100644
--- a/lib/rhashtable.c
+++ b/lib/rhashtable.c
@@ -443,8 +443,16 @@ int rhashtable_shrink(struct rhashtable *ht)
 		new_bucket_lock = bucket_lock(new_tbl, new_hash);
 
 		spin_lock_bh(old_bucket_lock1);
-		spin_lock_bh_nested(old_bucket_lock2, RHT_LOCK_NESTED);
-		spin_lock_bh_nested(new_bucket_lock, RHT_LOCK_NESTED2);
+
+		/* Depending on the lock per buckets mapping, the bucket in
+		 * the lower and upper region may map to the same lock.
+		 */
+		if (old_bucket_lock1 != old_bucket_lock2) {
+			spin_lock_bh_nested(old_bucket_lock2, RHT_LOCK_NESTED);
+			spin_lock_bh_nested(new_bucket_lock, RHT_LOCK_NESTED2);
+		} else {
+			spin_lock_bh_nested(new_bucket_lock, RHT_LOCK_NESTED);
+		}
 
 		rcu_assign_pointer(*bucket_tail(new_tbl, new_hash),
 				   tbl->buckets[new_hash]);
@@ -452,7 +460,8 @@ int rhashtable_shrink(struct rhashtable *ht)
 				   tbl->buckets[new_hash + new_tbl->size]);
 
 		spin_unlock_bh(new_bucket_lock);
-		spin_unlock_bh(old_bucket_lock2);
+		if (old_bucket_lock1 != old_bucket_lock2)
+			spin_unlock_bh(old_bucket_lock2);
 		spin_unlock_bh(old_bucket_lock1);
 	}
 
-- 
1.9.3

--
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/