netdev - Re: [GENETLINK]: Question: global lock (genl

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]

Date:	Fri, 20 Jul 2007 15:21:34 +0200
From:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
To:	Richard MUSIL <richard.musil@...com>
CC:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GENETLINK]: Question: global lock (genl_mutex) possible refinement?

Richard MUSIL wrote:
> I am currently trying to write a module which communicates with user space using NETLINK_GENERIC. This module (dev_mgr) manages virtual devices which are also supposed to use genetlink for communication with user space.
>
> I want to do something like that:
> dev_mgr <- receives message from user space to create new device
> dev_mgr	inside 'doit' handler:
> 	1. creates device
> 	2. registers new genetlink family for the device
> 	3. returns family name and id to user
>
> This should work similarly for device removal.
>
> After few reboots I found out that 2. blocks on genl_mutex, since this mutex is already acquired when genl_register_family is called (by genl_rcv).
>
> I do not see why registering new family (when processing message for another family) should be a problem. In fact from genl_lock and genl_trylock occurrence it seems that genl_mutex is mostly used for syncing access to family list and also for message processing.
> Since I am not (yet) familiar enough with (ge)netlink internals I am asking:
> Would it make sense to split the mutex into two, one for family list and one for messaging, so it would be possible to change families when processing the message?
>
> Simple split could introduce possible danger of user removing family inside processing of the message for this particular family, but would this really be a danger?
>   

The usual way to do this for auto-loading of modules that register
things that take a mutex that is already held during netlink queue
processing, like qdiscs, classifiers, .. is:

- look for <qdisc/classifier/...>, if not found:
- drop mutex (using the __ unlock variant to avoid reentering queue 
processing)
- perform module loading (which takes the mutex and registers itself)
- grab mutex again
- look for <qdisc/classifier/...> again
- if not found return -ENOENT
- if found drop reference, return -EAGAIN

The caller is changed to handle -EAGAIN by replaying the entire
request. Your problem sounds very similar, look at net/sched/sch_api.c
for an example.


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html