linux-kernel - [PATCH 5.15 007/230] can: bcm: use call_rcu() instead of costly synchronize

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:   Mon, 11 Jul 2022 11:04:23 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Norbert Slusarek <nslusarek@....net>,
        Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo <cascardo@...onical.com>,
        Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>,
        Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>
Subject: [PATCH 5.15 007/230] can: bcm: use call_rcu() instead of costly synchronize_rcu()

From: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>

commit f1b4e32aca0811aa011c76e5d6cf2fa19224b386 upstream.

In commit d5f9023fa61e ("can: bcm: delay release of struct bcm_op
after synchronize_rcu()") Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo introduced two
synchronize_rcu() calls in bcm_release() (only once at socket close)
and in bcm_delete_rx_op() (called on removal of each single bcm_op).

Unfortunately this slow removal of the bcm_op's affects user space
applications like cansniffer where the modification of a filter
removes 2048 bcm_op's which blocks the cansniffer application for
40(!) seconds.

In commit 181d4447905d ("can: gw: use call_rcu() instead of costly
synchronize_rcu()") Eric Dumazet replaced the synchronize_rcu() calls
with several call_rcu()'s to safely remove the data structures after
the removal of CAN ID subscriptions with can_rx_unregister() calls.

This patch adopts Erics approach for the can-bcm which should be
applicable since the removal of tasklet_kill() in bcm_remove_op() and
the introduction of the HRTIMER_MODE_SOFT timer handling in Linux 5.4.

Fixes: d5f9023fa61e ("can: bcm: delay release of struct bcm_op after synchronize_rcu()") # >= 5.4
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220520183239.19111-1-socketcan@hartkopp.net
Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Cc: Norbert Slusarek <nslusarek@....net>
Cc: Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo <cascardo@...onical.com>
Signed-off-by: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>
Signed-off-by: Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
---
 net/can/bcm.c |   18 ++++++++++++++----
 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

--- a/net/can/bcm.c
+++ b/net/can/bcm.c
@@ -100,6 +100,7 @@ static inline u64 get_u64(const struct c
 
 struct bcm_op {
 	struct list_head list;
+	struct rcu_head rcu;
 	int ifindex;
 	canid_t can_id;
 	u32 flags;
@@ -718,10 +719,9 @@ static struct bcm_op *bcm_find_op(struct
 	return NULL;
 }
 
-static void bcm_remove_op(struct bcm_op *op)
+static void bcm_free_op_rcu(struct rcu_head *rcu_head)
 {
-	hrtimer_cancel(&op->timer);
-	hrtimer_cancel(&op->thrtimer);
+	struct bcm_op *op = container_of(rcu_head, struct bcm_op, rcu);
 
 	if ((op->frames) && (op->frames != &op->sframe))
 		kfree(op->frames);
@@ -732,6 +732,14 @@ static void bcm_remove_op(struct bcm_op
 	kfree(op);
 }
 
+static void bcm_remove_op(struct bcm_op *op)
+{
+	hrtimer_cancel(&op->timer);
+	hrtimer_cancel(&op->thrtimer);
+
+	call_rcu(&op->rcu, bcm_free_op_rcu);
+}
+
 static void bcm_rx_unreg(struct net_device *dev, struct bcm_op *op)
 {
 	if (op->rx_reg_dev == dev) {
@@ -757,6 +765,9 @@ static int bcm_delete_rx_op(struct list_
 		if ((op->can_id == mh->can_id) && (op->ifindex == ifindex) &&
 		    (op->flags & CAN_FD_FRAME) == (mh->flags & CAN_FD_FRAME)) {
 
+			/* disable automatic timer on frame reception */
+			op->flags |= RX_NO_AUTOTIMER;
+
 			/*
 			 * Don't care if we're bound or not (due to netdev
 			 * problems) can_rx_unregister() is always a save
@@ -785,7 +796,6 @@ static int bcm_delete_rx_op(struct list_
 						  bcm_rx_handler, op);
 
 			list_del(&op->list);
-			synchronize_rcu();
 			bcm_remove_op(op);
 			return 1; /* done */
 		}