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, 9 Oct 2020 17:41:16 +0200
From:   Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To:     Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>
Cc:     tglx@...utronix.de, linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bristot@...hat.com,
        williams@...hat.com, echaudro@...hat.com, atheurer@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.9 RT] net: openvswitch: Fix using smp_processor_id() in
 preemptible code

On 2020-10-09 14:47:59 [+0200], Juri Lelli wrote:
> This happens because openvswitch/flow_table::flow_lookup() accesses
> per-cpu data while being preemptible (and migratable).
> 
> Fix it by adding get/put_cpu_light(), so that, even if preempted, the
> task executing this code is not migrated (operation is also guarded by
> ovs_mutex mutex).

This warning is not limited to PREEMPT_RT it also present upstream since
commit
   eac87c413bf97 ("net: openvswitch: reorder masks array based on usage")

You should be able to reproduce it there, too.
The path ovs_flow_tbl_lookup() -> flow_lookup() is guarded by ovs_lock()
I can't say that this true for
   ovs_vport_receive() -> ovs_dp_process_packet() ->
   ovs_flow_tbl_lookup_stats() -> flow_lookup()

(means I don't know but it looks like coming from NAPI).

Which means u64_stats_update_begin() could have two writers. This must
not happen.
There are two reader which do u64_stats_fetch_begin_irq(). Disabling
interrupts makes no sense since they perform cross-CPU access.

-> You need to ensure that there is only one writer at a time.

If mask_array gains a spinlock_t for writer protection then you can
acquire the lock prio grabbing ->masks_usage_cntr. But as of now there
is one `ma->syncp'.

Sebastian

Powered by blists - more mailing lists