linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] dccp: put dccp_qpolicy_full() and dccp_qpolicy

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 28 Jul 2022 20:01:39 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Hangyu Hua <hbh25y@...il.com>
Cc:     davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, pabeni@...hat.com,
        kuniyu@...zon.co.jp, richard_siegfried@...temli.org,
        joannelkoong@...il.com, socketcan@...tkopp.net,
        gerrit@....abdn.ac.uk, tomasz@...belny.oswiecenia.net,
        dccp@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dccp: put dccp_qpolicy_full() and dccp_qpolicy_push()
 in the same lock

On Wed, 27 Jul 2022 16:06:09 +0800 Hangyu Hua wrote:
> In the case of sk->dccps_qpolicy == DCCPQ_POLICY_PRIO, dccp_qpolicy_full
> will drop a skb when qpolicy is full. And the lock in dccp_sendmsg is
> released before sock_alloc_send_skb and then relocked after
> sock_alloc_send_skb. The following conditions may lead dccp_qpolicy_push
> to add skb to an already full sk_write_queue:
> 
> thread1--->lock
> thread1--->dccp_qpolicy_full: queue is full. drop a skb

This linie should say "not full"?

> thread1--->unlock
> thread2--->lock
> thread2--->dccp_qpolicy_full: queue is not full. no need to drop.
> thread2--->unlock
> thread1--->lock
> thread1--->dccp_qpolicy_push: add a skb. queue is full.
> thread1--->unlock
> thread2--->lock
> thread2--->dccp_qpolicy_push: add a skb!
> thread2--->unlock
> 
> Fix this by moving dccp_qpolicy_full.
> 
> Fixes: 871a2c16c21b ("dccp: Policy-based packet dequeueing infrastructure")

This code was added in b1308dc015eb0, AFAICT. Please double check.

> Signed-off-by: Hangyu Hua <hbh25y@...il.com>
> ---
>  net/dccp/proto.c | 10 +++++-----
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/net/dccp/proto.c b/net/dccp/proto.c
> index eb8e128e43e8..1a0193823c82 100644
> --- a/net/dccp/proto.c
> +++ b/net/dccp/proto.c
> @@ -736,11 +736,6 @@ int dccp_sendmsg(struct sock *sk, struct msghdr *msg, size_t len)
>  
>  	lock_sock(sk);
>  
> -	if (dccp_qpolicy_full(sk)) {
> -		rc = -EAGAIN;
> -		goto out_release;
> -	}
> -
>  	timeo = sock_sndtimeo(sk, noblock);
>  
>  	/*
> @@ -773,6 +768,11 @@ int dccp_sendmsg(struct sock *sk, struct msghdr *msg, size_t len)
>  	if (rc != 0)
>  		goto out_discard;
>  
> +	if (dccp_qpolicy_full(sk)) {
> +		rc = -EAGAIN;
> +		goto out_discard;
> +	}

Shouldn't this be earlier, right after relocking? Why copy the data etc.
if we know the queue is full?

>  	dccp_qpolicy_push(sk, skb);
>  	/*
>  	 * The xmit_timer is set if the TX CCID is rate-based and will expire