[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <94b58c20-9111-8ada-79fd-eced6a1ba2cc@sberdevices.ru>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2023 15:54:33 +0300
From: Arseniy Krasnov <avkrasnov@...rdevices.ru>
To: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
CC: Bobby Eshleman <bobby.eshleman@...edance.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
<virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
<syzbot+befff0a9536049e7902e@...kaller.appspotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] vsock/loopback: use only sk_buff_head.lock to protect
the packet queue
On 24.03.2023 14:54, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> pkt_list_lock was used before commit 71dc9ec9ac7d ("virtio/vsock:
> replace virtio_vsock_pkt with sk_buff") to protect the packet queue.
> After that commit we switched to sk_buff and we are using
> sk_buff_head.lock in almost every place to protect the packet queue
> except in vsock_loopback_work() when we call skb_queue_splice_init().
>
> As reported by syzbot, this caused unlocked concurrent access to the
> packet queue between vsock_loopback_work() and
> vsock_loopback_cancel_pkt() since it is not holding pkt_list_lock.
>
> With the introduction of sk_buff_head, pkt_list_lock is redundant and
> can cause confusion, so let's remove it and use sk_buff_head.lock
> everywhere to protect the packet queue access.
>
> Fixes: 71dc9ec9ac7d ("virtio/vsock: replace virtio_vsock_pkt with sk_buff")
> Cc: bobby.eshleman@...edance.com
> Reported-and-tested-by: syzbot+befff0a9536049e7902e@...kaller.appspotmail.com
> Signed-off-by: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>
> ---
> net/vmw_vsock/vsock_loopback.c | 10 ++--------
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
Reviewed-by: Arseniy Krasnov <AVKrasnov@...rdevices.ru>
>
> diff --git a/net/vmw_vsock/vsock_loopback.c b/net/vmw_vsock/vsock_loopback.c
> index 671e03240fc5..89905c092645 100644
> --- a/net/vmw_vsock/vsock_loopback.c
> +++ b/net/vmw_vsock/vsock_loopback.c
> @@ -15,7 +15,6 @@
> struct vsock_loopback {
> struct workqueue_struct *workqueue;
>
> - spinlock_t pkt_list_lock; /* protects pkt_list */
> struct sk_buff_head pkt_queue;
> struct work_struct pkt_work;
> };
> @@ -32,9 +31,7 @@ static int vsock_loopback_send_pkt(struct sk_buff *skb)
> struct vsock_loopback *vsock = &the_vsock_loopback;
> int len = skb->len;
>
> - spin_lock_bh(&vsock->pkt_list_lock);
> skb_queue_tail(&vsock->pkt_queue, skb);
> - spin_unlock_bh(&vsock->pkt_list_lock);
>
> queue_work(vsock->workqueue, &vsock->pkt_work);
>
> @@ -113,9 +110,9 @@ static void vsock_loopback_work(struct work_struct *work)
>
> skb_queue_head_init(&pkts);
>
> - spin_lock_bh(&vsock->pkt_list_lock);
> + spin_lock_bh(&vsock->pkt_queue.lock);
> skb_queue_splice_init(&vsock->pkt_queue, &pkts);
> - spin_unlock_bh(&vsock->pkt_list_lock);
> + spin_unlock_bh(&vsock->pkt_queue.lock);
>
> while ((skb = __skb_dequeue(&pkts))) {
> virtio_transport_deliver_tap_pkt(skb);
> @@ -132,7 +129,6 @@ static int __init vsock_loopback_init(void)
> if (!vsock->workqueue)
> return -ENOMEM;
>
> - spin_lock_init(&vsock->pkt_list_lock);
> skb_queue_head_init(&vsock->pkt_queue);
> INIT_WORK(&vsock->pkt_work, vsock_loopback_work);
>
> @@ -156,9 +152,7 @@ static void __exit vsock_loopback_exit(void)
>
> flush_work(&vsock->pkt_work);
>
> - spin_lock_bh(&vsock->pkt_list_lock);
> virtio_vsock_skb_queue_purge(&vsock->pkt_queue);
> - spin_unlock_bh(&vsock->pkt_list_lock);
>
> destroy_workqueue(vsock->workqueue);
> }
Powered by blists - more mailing lists