linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net] net/smc: delete buf_desc from buffer list under lock protection

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <b55a530a-4b22-453e-84dc-0bd5583aced6@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2024 17:31:32 +0800
From: Wen Gu <guwen@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: Wenjia Zhang <wenjia@...ux.ibm.com>,
 shaozhengchao <shaozhengchao@...wei.com>, jaka@...ux.ibm.com,
 davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com
Cc: alibuda@...ux.alibaba.com, tonylu@...ux.alibaba.com,
 linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net/smc: delete buf_desc from buffer list under lock
 protection



On 2024/8/5 16:23, Wenjia Zhang wrote:
> 
> 
> On 02.08.24 03:55, Wen Gu wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2024/7/31 18:32, shaozhengchao wrote:
>>> Hi Wen Gu:
>>>    "The operations to link group buffer list should be protected by
>>> sndbufs_lock or rmbs_lock" It seems that the logic is smooth. But will
>>> this really happen? Because no process is in use with the link group,
>>> does this mean that there is no concurrent scenario?
>>>
>>
>> Hi Zhengchao,
>>
>> Yes, I am also very conflicted about whether to add lock protection.
>>  From the code, it appears that when __smc_lgr_free_bufs is called, the
>> link group has already been removed from the lgr_list, so theoretically
>> there should be no contention (e.g. add to buf_list). However, in order
>> to maintain consistency with other lgr buf_list operations and to guard
>> against unforeseen or future changes, I have added lock protection here
>> as well.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
> 
> I'm indeed in two minds about if I give you my reviewed-by especially on the reason of unforeseen bugs. However, previously the most bugs on locking we met in our code are almost because of deadlocks caused by too much different locks introduced. Thus, I don't think this patch is necessary at lease 
> for now.
> 

OK, let's handle it when it causes actual problems. Thanks!

> Thanks,
> Wenjia