[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANn89iJ+KW+=Z13o_K4RpZfoxO8rGaXRXQ07jZfpE5RMH0Uweg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2023 17:11:48 +0100
From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
To: Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@...il.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org, dsahern@...nel.org,
kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jason Xing <kernelxing@...cent.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net] tcp: avoid the lookup process failing to get sk in
ehash table
On Sat, Jan 14, 2023 at 2:27 PM Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@...il.com> wrote:
>
> From: Jason Xing <kernelxing@...cent.com>
>
>
> Fixes: 5e0724d027f0 ("tcp/dccp: fix hashdance race for passive sessions")
> Suggested-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jason Xing <kernelxing@...cent.com>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230112065336.41034-1-kerneljasonxing@gmail.com/
> ---
> v2:
> 1) adding the sk node into the tail of list to prevent the race.
> 2) fix the race condition when handling time-wait socket hashdance.
> ---
> net/ipv4/inet_hashtables.c | 10 ++++++++++
> net/ipv4/inet_timewait_sock.c | 6 +++---
> 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/ipv4/inet_hashtables.c b/net/ipv4/inet_hashtables.c
> index 24a38b56fab9..b0b54ad55507 100644
> --- a/net/ipv4/inet_hashtables.c
> +++ b/net/ipv4/inet_hashtables.c
> @@ -650,7 +650,16 @@ bool inet_ehash_insert(struct sock *sk, struct sock *osk, bool *found_dup_sk)
> spin_lock(lock);
> if (osk) {
> WARN_ON_ONCE(sk->sk_hash != osk->sk_hash);
> + if (sk_hashed(osk))
nit: this should be:
if (sk_hashed(osk)) { [1]
/* multi-line ....
* .... comment.
*/
ret = sk_nulls_del_node_init_rcu(osk);
goto unlock;
}
if (found_dup_sk) { [2]
1) parentheses needed in [1]
2) No else if in [2], since you added a "goto unlock;"
> + /* Before deleting the node, we insert a new one to make
> + * sure that the look-up-sk process would not miss either
> + * of them and that at least one node would exist in ehash
> + * table all the time. Otherwise there's a tiny chance
> + * that lookup process could find nothing in ehash table.
> + */
> + __sk_nulls_add_node_tail_rcu(sk, list);
> ret = sk_nulls_del_node_init_rcu(osk);
> + goto unlock;
> } else if (found_dup_sk) {
> *found_dup_sk = inet_ehash_lookup_by_sk(sk, list);
> if (*found_dup_sk)
> @@ -660,6 +669,7 @@ bool inet_ehash_insert(struct sock *sk, struct sock *osk, bool *found_dup_sk)
> if (ret)
> __sk_nulls_add_node_rcu(sk, list);
>
> +unlock:
> spin_unlock(lock);
Thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists