linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] Drivers: hv: vmbus: Fix race condition with new ring_buffer

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: <20190328114252.141bbcd5@shemminger-XPS-13-9360>
Date:   Thu, 28 Mar 2019 11:42:52 -0700
From:   Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
To:     Kimberly Brown <kimbrownkd@...il.com>
Cc:     Michael Kelley <mikelley@...rosoft.com>,
        Long Li <longli@...rosoft.com>,
        Sasha Levin <Alexander.Levin@...rosoft.com>,
        Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@...rosoft.com>,
        Dexuan Cui <decui@...rosoft.com>,
        KY Srinivasan <kys@...rosoft.com>,
        Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>,
        "linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org" <linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] Drivers: hv: vmbus: Fix race condition with new
 ring_buffer_info mutex

On Thu, 28 Mar 2019 00:30:57 -0400
Kimberly Brown <kimbrownkd@...il.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 04:04:20PM +0000, Michael Kelley wrote:
> > From: Kimberly Brown <kimbrownkd@...il.com>  Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 8:48 PM  
> > > > > > Adding more locks will solve the problem but it seems like overkill.
> > > > > > Why not either use a reference count or an RCU style access for the
> > > > > > ring buffer?  
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree that a reference count or RCU could also solve this problem.
> > > > > Using mutex locks seemed like the most straightforward solution, but
> > > > > I'll certainly switch to a different approach if it's better!
> > > > >
> > > > > Are you concerned about the extra memory required for the mutex locks,
> > > > > read performance, or something else?  
> > > >
> > > > Locks in control path are ok, but my concern is performance of the
> > > > data path which puts packets in/out of rings. To keep reasonable performance,
> > > > no additional locking should be added in those paths.
> > > >
> > > > So if data path is using RCU, can/should the control operations also
> > > > use it?  
> > >   
> 
> 
> Hi Stephen,
> 
> Do you have any additional questions or suggestions for this race
> condition and the mutex locks? I think that your initial questions were
> addressed in the responses below. If there's anything else, please let
> me know!
> 
> Thanks,
> Kim
> 
> 
> > > The data path doesn't use RCU to protect the ring buffers.  
> > 
> > My $.02:  The mutex is obtained only in the sysfs path and the "delete
> > ringbuffers" path, neither of which is performance or concurrency sensitive. 
> > There's no change to any path that reads or writes data from/to the ring
> > buffers.  It seems like the mutex is the most straightforward solution to
> > preventing sysfs from accessing the ring buffer info while the memory is
> > being freed as part of "delete ringbuffers".
> > 
> > Michael  


I have no problems with the patch you did.
My discussion was more around the general issues with ringbuffers being detached
from the device. Not sure if it was even a good design choice but that is
something that is hard to fix now.