linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH] rhashtable: Fix potential deadlock by moving schedule

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:
 <SN6PR02MB41577C2C4EB260F3D2D4F85FD41C2@SN6PR02MB4157.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2025 16:59:28 +0000
From: Michael Kelley <mhklinux@...look.com>
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, Breno Leitao <leitao@...ian.org>
CC: "saeedm@...dia.com" <saeedm@...dia.com>, "tariqt@...dia.com"
	<tariqt@...dia.com>, "linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Hao Luo
	<haoluo@...gle.com>, Josh Don <joshdon@...gle.com>, Barret Rhoden
	<brho@...gle.com>, "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] rhashtable: Fix potential deadlock by moving
 schedule_work outside lock

From: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au> Sent: Friday, January 10, 2025 1:28 AM
> 
> On Thu, Jan 09, 2025 at 02:15:17AM -0800, Breno Leitao wrote:
> >
> > I would suggest we revert this patch until we investigate further. I'll
> > prepare and send a revert patch shortly.
> 
> Sorry, I think it was my addition that broke things.  The condition
> for checking whether an entry is inserted is incorrect, thus resulting
> in an underflow of the number of entries after entry removal.
> 
> Please test this patch:
> 
> ---8<---
> The function rhashtable_insert_one only returns NULL iff the
> insertion was successful, so that alone should be tested before
> increment nelems.  Testing the variable data is redundant, and
> buggy because we will have overwritten the original value of data
> by this point.
> 
> Reported-by: Michael Kelley <mhklinux@...look.com>
> Fixes: e1d3422c95f0 ("rhashtable: Fix potential deadlock by moving schedule_work
> outside lock")
> Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
> 
> diff --git a/lib/rhashtable.c b/lib/rhashtable.c
> index bf956b85455a..e196b6f0e35a 100644
> --- a/lib/rhashtable.c
> +++ b/lib/rhashtable.c
> @@ -621,7 +621,7 @@ static void *rhashtable_try_insert(struct rhashtable *ht, const
> void *key,
> 
>  			rht_unlock(tbl, bkt, flags);
> 
> -			if (PTR_ERR(data) == -ENOENT && !new_tbl) {
> +			if (!new_tbl) {
>  				atomic_inc(&ht->nelems);
>  				if (rht_grow_above_75(ht, tbl))
>  					schedule_work(&ht->run_work);
> --

This patch fixes the problem I saw with VMs in the Azure cloud.  Thanks!

Michael Kelley