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

Message-ID: <Z33nEKg4PxwReUu_@fedora>
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2025 02:46:40 +0000
From: Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com>
To: Jianbo Liu <jianbol@...dia.com>
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, 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>, Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...dia.com>,
	Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
	Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>,
	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
	Sabrina Dubroca <sd@...asysnail.net>,
	linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 0/2] bond: fix xfrm offload feature during init

On Mon, Jan 06, 2025 at 10:47:16AM +0000, Hangbin Liu wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 02, 2025 at 11:33:34AM +0800, Jianbo Liu wrote:
> > > > 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.
> > > 
> > > I don't know how to disable bonding sleeping since we use mutex_lock now.
> > > Hi Jianbo, do you have any idea?
> > > 
> > 
> > I think we should allow drivers to sleep in the callbacks. So, maybe it's
> > better to move driver's xdo_dev_state_delete out of state's spin lock.
> 
> I just check the code, xfrm_dev_state_delete() and later
> dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_delete(x) have too many xfrm_state x
> checks. Can we really move it out of spin lock from xfrm_state_delete()

I tried to move the mutex lock code to a work queue, but found we need to
check (ipsec->xs == xs) in bonding. So we still need xfrm_state x during bond
ipsec gc.

So either we add a new lock for xfrm_state, or we need to unlock spin lock in
bonding bond_ipsec_del_sa().

Cc IPsec experts to see if they have any comments.

Background: The xfrm_dev_state_delete() in xfrm_state_delete() is protected
by spin lock. But the driver delete ops dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_delete(x)
may sleep, e.g. bond_ipsec_del_sa(). What we should deal with this issue?

Thanks
Hangbin