linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net 0/2] bond: fix xfrm offload feature during init

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: <20241213193127.4c31ef80@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2024 19:31:27 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Jay Vosburgh <jv@...sburgh.net>, Andy Gospodarek
 <andy@...yhouse.net>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet
 <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Nikolay Aleksandrov
 <razor@...ckwall.org>, Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, Jianbo Liu
 <jianbol@...dia.com>, Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...dia.com>, Andrew Lunn
 <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
 linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 0/2] bond: fix xfrm offload feature during init

On Fri, 13 Dec 2024 07:18:08 +0000 Hangbin Liu wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2024 at 06:27:34AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 07:11:25 +0000 Hangbin Liu wrote:  
> > > The first patch fixes the xfrm offload feature during setup active-backup
> > > mode. The second patch add a ipsec offload testing.  
> > 
> > Looks like the test is too good, is there a fix pending somewhere for
> > the BUG below? We can't merge the test before that:  
> 
> This should be a regression of 2aeeef906d5a ("bonding: change ipsec_lock from
> spin lock to mutex"). As in xfrm_state_delete we called spin_lock_bh(&x->lock)
> for the xfrm state delete.
> 
> But I'm not sure if it's proper to release the spin lock in bond code.
> This seems too specific.
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
> index 7daeab67e7b5..69563bc958ca 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
> @@ -592,6 +592,7 @@ static void bond_ipsec_del_sa(struct xfrm_state *xs)
>  	real_dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_delete(xs);
>  out:
>  	netdev_put(real_dev, &tracker);
> +	spin_unlock_bh(&xs->lock);
>  	mutex_lock(&bond->ipsec_lock);
>  	list_for_each_entry(ipsec, &bond->ipsec_list, list) {
>  		if (ipsec->xs == xs) {
> @@ -601,6 +602,7 @@ static void bond_ipsec_del_sa(struct xfrm_state *xs)
>  		}
>  	}
>  	mutex_unlock(&bond->ipsec_lock);
> +	spin_lock_bh(&xs->lock);
>  }
>  
> 
> What do you think?

Re-locking doesn't look great, glancing at the code I don't see any
obvious better workarounds. Easiest fix would be to don't let the
drivers sleep in the callbacks and then we can go back to a spin lock.
Maybe nvidia people have better ideas, I'm not familiar with this
offload.