linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] vhost: fix skb leak in handle

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: <20171201163728-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
Date:   Fri, 1 Dec 2017 16:37:43 +0200
From:   "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:     Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
Cc:     wexu@...hat.com, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        mjrosato@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] vhost: fix skb leak in handle_rx()

On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 03:11:05PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2017年12月01日 13:54, wexu@...hat.com wrote:
> > From: Wei Xu <wexu@...hat.com>
> > 
> > Matthew found a roughly 40% tcp throughput regression with commit
> > c67df11f(vhost_net: try batch dequing from skb array) as discussed
> > in the following thread:
> > https://www.mail-archive.com/netdev@vger.kernel.org/msg187936.html
> > 
> > Eventually we figured out that it was a skb leak in handle_rx()
> > when sending packets to the VM. This usually happens when a guest
> > can not drain out vq as fast as vhost fills in, afterwards it sets
> > off the traffic jam and leaks skb(s) which occurs as no headcount
> > to send on the vq from vhost side.
> > 
> > This can be avoided by making sure we have got enough headcount
> > before actually consuming a skb from the batched rx array while
> > transmitting, which is simply done by moving checking the zero
> > headcount a bit ahead.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Wei Xu <wexu@...hat.com>
> > Reported-by: Matthew Rosato <mjrosato@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > ---
> >   drivers/vhost/net.c | 20 ++++++++++----------
> >   1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/vhost/net.c b/drivers/vhost/net.c
> > index 8d626d7..c7bdeb6 100644
> > --- a/drivers/vhost/net.c
> > +++ b/drivers/vhost/net.c
> > @@ -778,16 +778,6 @@ static void handle_rx(struct vhost_net *net)
> >   		/* On error, stop handling until the next kick. */
> >   		if (unlikely(headcount < 0))
> >   			goto out;
> > -		if (nvq->rx_array)
> > -			msg.msg_control = vhost_net_buf_consume(&nvq->rxq);
> > -		/* On overrun, truncate and discard */
> > -		if (unlikely(headcount > UIO_MAXIOV)) {
> > -			iov_iter_init(&msg.msg_iter, READ, vq->iov, 1, 1);
> > -			err = sock->ops->recvmsg(sock, &msg,
> > -						 1, MSG_DONTWAIT | MSG_TRUNC);
> > -			pr_debug("Discarded rx packet: len %zd\n", sock_len);
> > -			continue;
> > -		}
> >   		/* OK, now we need to know about added descriptors. */
> >   		if (!headcount) {
> >   			if (unlikely(vhost_enable_notify(&net->dev, vq))) {
> > @@ -800,6 +790,16 @@ static void handle_rx(struct vhost_net *net)
> >   			 * they refilled. */
> >   			goto out;
> >   		}
> > +		if (nvq->rx_array)
> > +			msg.msg_control = vhost_net_buf_consume(&nvq->rxq);
> > +		/* On overrun, truncate and discard */
> > +		if (unlikely(headcount > UIO_MAXIOV)) {
> > +			iov_iter_init(&msg.msg_iter, READ, vq->iov, 1, 1);
> > +			err = sock->ops->recvmsg(sock, &msg,
> > +						 1, MSG_DONTWAIT | MSG_TRUNC);
> > +			pr_debug("Discarded rx packet: len %zd\n", sock_len);
> > +			continue;
> > +		}
> >   		/* We don't need to be notified again. */
> >   		iov_iter_init(&msg.msg_iter, READ, vq->iov, in, vhost_len);
> >   		fixup = msg.msg_iter;
> 
> I suggest to reorder this patch to 3/3.
> 
> Thanks

Why? This doesn't cause any new leaks, does it?

-- 
MST