linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v1] netdevsim: Forbid devlink reload when adding or deleting ports

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: <YQvs4wRIIEDG6Dcu@unreal>
Date:   Thu, 5 Aug 2021 16:51:31 +0300
From:   Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v1] netdevsim: Forbid devlink reload when adding
 or deleting ports

On Thu, Aug 05, 2021 at 06:15:47AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Thu,  5 Aug 2021 14:05:41 +0300 Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > From: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>
> > 
> > In order to remove complexity in devlink core related to
> > devlink_reload_enable/disable, let's rewrite new_port/del_port
> > logic to rely on internal to netdevsim lock.
> > 
> > We should protect only reload_down flow because it destroys nsim_dev,
> > which is needed for nsim_dev_port_add/nsim_dev_port_del to hold
> > port_list_lock.
> 
> I don't understand why we only have to protect reload_down.

I assumed that if we succeeded to pass reload_down and we are in
reload_up stage, everything was already bailed out.

> 
> What protects us from adding a port right after down? That'd hit a
> destroyed mutex, up wipes the port list etc...

You will have very similar crash to already existing one:
* parallel call to del_device and add_port will hit same issue.

The idea is not make netdevsim universally correct, but to ensure that
it doesn't crash immediately.

> 
> > +	nsim_bus_dev = nsim_dev->nsim_bus_dev;
> > +	if (!mutex_trylock(&nsim_bus_dev->nsim_bus_reload_lock))
> > +		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> 
> Why not -EBUSY?

This is what devlink_reload_disable() returns, so I kept same error.
It is not important at all.

What about the following change on top of this patch?

diff --git a/drivers/net/netdevsim/bus.c b/drivers/net/netdevsim/bus.c
index a29ec264119d..62d033a1a557 100644
--- a/drivers/net/netdevsim/bus.c
+++ b/drivers/net/netdevsim/bus.c
@@ -196,6 +196,11 @@ new_port_store(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr,
 	if (!mutex_trylock(&nsim_bus_dev->nsim_bus_reload_lock))
 		return -EBUSY;
 
+	if (nsim_bus_dev->in_reload) {
+		mutex_unlock(&nsim_bus_dev->nsim_bus_reload_lock);
+		return -EBUSY;
+	}
+
 	ret = nsim_dev_port_add(nsim_bus_dev, NSIM_DEV_PORT_TYPE_PF, port_index);
 	mutex_unlock(&nsim_bus_dev->nsim_bus_reload_lock);
 	return ret ? ret : count;
@@ -221,6 +226,11 @@ del_port_store(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr,
 	if (!mutex_trylock(&nsim_bus_dev->nsim_bus_reload_lock))
 		return -EBUSY;
 
+	if (nsim_bus_dev->in_reload) {
+		mutex_unlock(&nsim_bus_dev->nsim_bus_reload_lock);
+		return -EBUSY;
+	}
+
 	ret = nsim_dev_port_del(nsim_bus_dev, NSIM_DEV_PORT_TYPE_PF, port_index);
 	mutex_unlock(&nsim_bus_dev->nsim_bus_reload_lock);
 	return ret ? ret : count;
diff --git a/drivers/net/netdevsim/dev.c b/drivers/net/netdevsim/dev.c
index ff5714209b86..53068e184c90 100644
--- a/drivers/net/netdevsim/dev.c
+++ b/drivers/net/netdevsim/dev.c
@@ -878,6 +878,7 @@ static int nsim_dev_reload_down(struct devlink *devlink, bool netns_change,
 		mutex_unlock(&nsim_bus_dev->nsim_bus_reload_lock);
 		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
 	}
+	nsim_bus_dev->in_reload = true;
 
 	nsim_dev_reload_destroy(nsim_dev);
 	mutex_unlock(&nsim_bus_dev->nsim_bus_reload_lock);
@@ -889,17 +890,26 @@ static int nsim_dev_reload_up(struct devlink *devlink, enum devlink_reload_actio
 			      struct netlink_ext_ack *extack)
 {
 	struct nsim_dev *nsim_dev = devlink_priv(devlink);
+	struct nsim_bus_dev *nsim_bus_dev;
+	int ret;
+
+	nsim_bus_dev = nsim_dev->nsim_bus_dev;
+	mutex_lock(&nsim_bus_dev->nsim_bus_reload_lock);
+	nsim_bus_dev->in_reload = false;
 
 	if (nsim_dev->fail_reload) {
 		/* For testing purposes, user set debugfs fail_reload
 		 * value to true. Fail right away.
 		 */
 		NL_SET_ERR_MSG_MOD(extack, "User setup the reload to fail for testing purposes");
+		mutex_unlock(&nsim_bus_dev->nsim_bus_reload_lock);
 		return -EINVAL;
 	}
 
 	*actions_performed = BIT(DEVLINK_RELOAD_ACTION_DRIVER_REINIT);
-	return nsim_dev_reload_create(nsim_dev, extack);
+	ret = nsim_dev_reload_create(nsim_dev, extack);
+	mutex_unlock(&nsim_bus_dev->nsim_bus_reload_lock);
+	return ret;
 }
 
 static int nsim_dev_info_get(struct devlink *devlink,
diff --git a/drivers/net/netdevsim/netdevsim.h b/drivers/net/netdevsim/netdevsim.h
index 1c20bcbd9d91..793c86dc5a9c 100644
--- a/drivers/net/netdevsim/netdevsim.h
+++ b/drivers/net/netdevsim/netdevsim.h
@@ -362,6 +362,7 @@ struct nsim_bus_dev {
 	struct nsim_vf_config *vfconfigs;
 	/* Lock for devlink->reload_enabled in netdevsim module */
 	struct mutex nsim_bus_reload_lock;
+	bool in_reload;
 	bool init;
 };
 


Thanks