linux-kernel - Re: [v3 PATCH] rhashtable: Fix rhashtable_try

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: <0749cd68-c5ab-4ab6-9c48-6e445263333b@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2025 14:20:46 +0100
From: Zaslonko Mikhail <zaslonko@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        Michael Kelley <mhklinux@...look.com>
Cc: Breno Leitao <leitao@...ian.org>, "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>,
        Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [v3 PATCH] rhashtable: Fix rhashtable_try_insert test

Hello,

On 14.01.2025 04:15, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 06:22:40PM +0000, Michael Kelley wrote:
> 
> Thanks for testing! The patch needs one more change though as
> moving the atomic_inc outside of the lock was a bad idea on my
> part.  This could cause atomic_inc/atomic_dec to be reordered
> thus resulting in an underflow.
> 
> Thanks,

I've tested v3 patch on s390 for the boot OOM problem with 'mem=1G'
kernel parameter we experience on current linux-next kernel and confirm
that the issue is no longer present.

Tested-by: Mikhail Zaslonko <zaslonko@...ux.ibm.com>

> 
> ---8<---
> The test on whether rhashtable_insert_one did an insertion relies
> on the value returned by rhashtable_lookup_one.  Unfortunately that
> value is overwritten after rhashtable_insert_one returns.  Fix this
> by moving the test before data gets overwritten.
> 
> Simplify the test as only data == NULL matters.
> 
> Finally move atomic_inc back within the lock as otherwise it may
> be reordered with the atomic_dec on the removal side, potentially
> leading to an underflow.
> 
> 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..0e9a1d4cf89b 100644
> --- a/lib/rhashtable.c
> +++ b/lib/rhashtable.c
> @@ -611,21 +611,23 @@ static void *rhashtable_try_insert(struct rhashtable *ht, const void *key,
>  			new_tbl = rht_dereference_rcu(tbl->future_tbl, ht);
>  			data = ERR_PTR(-EAGAIN);
>  		} else {
> +			bool inserted;
> +
>  			flags = rht_lock(tbl, bkt);
>  			data = rhashtable_lookup_one(ht, bkt, tbl,
>  						     hash, key, obj);
>  			new_tbl = rhashtable_insert_one(ht, bkt, tbl,
>  							hash, obj, data);
> +			inserted = data && !new_tbl;
> +			if (inserted)
> +				atomic_inc(&ht->nelems);
>  			if (PTR_ERR(new_tbl) != -EEXIST)
>  				data = ERR_CAST(new_tbl);
>  
>  			rht_unlock(tbl, bkt, flags);
>  
> -			if (PTR_ERR(data) == -ENOENT && !new_tbl) {
> -				atomic_inc(&ht->nelems);
> -				if (rht_grow_above_75(ht, tbl))
> -					schedule_work(&ht->run_work);
> -			}
> +			if (inserted && rht_grow_above_75(ht, tbl))
> +				schedule_work(&ht->run_work);
>  		}
>  	} while (!IS_ERR_OR_NULL(new_tbl));
>  

Thanks!