linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] IB/core: Make ib_mad_client

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:   Fri, 20 Apr 2018 09:34:51 -0600
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
To:     Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>
Cc:     Håkon Bugge <Haakon.Bugge@...cle.com>,
        Don Hiatt <don.hiatt@...el.com>,
        Dasaratharaman Chandramouli 
        <dasaratharaman.chandramouli@...el.com>,
        Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>,
        Sean Hefty <sean.hefty@...el.com>, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] IB/core: Make ib_mad_client_id atomic

On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 11:55:55PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-04-18 at 16:24 +0200, Håkon Bugge wrote:
> > Two kernel threads may get the same value for agent.hi_tid, if the
> > agents are registered for different ports. As of now, this works, as
> > the agent list is per port.
> > 
> > It is however confusing and not future robust. Hence, making it
> > atomic.
> > 
> 
> People sometimes underestimate the performance penalty of atomic ops. 
> Every atomic op is the equivalent of a spin_lock/spin_unlock pair.  This
> is why two atomics are worse than taking a spin_lock, doing what you
> have to do, and releasing the spin_lock.  Is this really what you want
> for a "confusing, let's make it robust" issue?

But it is on the ib_register_mad_agent() path which is not a
performance path..

This actually looks like a genuine bug, why is it described only as
'confusing'? ib_register_mad_agent is callable from userspace, so at
least two userspace agents can race and get the same TID's.

TIDs need to be globally unique on the entire machine.

Jason