netdev - Re: [PATCH][PPPOL2TP]: Fix SMP oops in pppol2tp driver

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: <20080303082204.GA4066@ff.dom.local>
Date:	Mon, 3 Mar 2008 08:22:04 +0000
From:	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
To:	James Chapman <jchapman@...alix.com>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][PPPOL2TP]: Fix SMP oops in pppol2tp driver

On Sun, Mar 02, 2008 at 08:29:58PM +0000, James Chapman wrote:
> Jarek Poplawski wrote:
>> James Chapman wrote, On 02/26/2008 01:14 PM:
...
>
> I tried your patch but the result is the same.
>
>>
>> Jarek P.
>> ---
>>
>>  drivers/net/pppol2tp.c |   16 ++++++++--------
>>  1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/pppol2tp.c b/drivers/net/pppol2tp.c
>> index e0b072d..7c6fcb9 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/pppol2tp.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/pppol2tp.c
>> @@ -363,18 +363,17 @@ out:
>>  	spin_unlock(&session->reorder_q.lock);
>>  }
>>  -/* Dequeue a single skb.
>> +/* Requeue a single skb.
>>   */
>> -static void pppol2tp_recv_dequeue_skb(struct pppol2tp_session *session, struct sk_buff *skb)
>> +static void pppol2tp_recv_requeue_skb(struct pppol2tp_session *session, struct sk_buff *skb)
>>  {
>>  	struct pppol2tp_tunnel *tunnel = session->tunnel;
>>  	int length = PPPOL2TP_SKB_CB(skb)->length;
>>  	struct sock *session_sock = NULL;
>>  -	/* We're about to requeue the skb, so unlink it and return resources
>> +	/* We're about to requeue the skb, so return resources
>>  	 * to its current owner (a socket receive buffer).
>>  	 */
>> -	skb_unlink(skb, &session->reorder_q);
>>  	skb_orphan(skb);
>>   	tunnel->stats.rx_packets++;
>> @@ -436,14 +435,14 @@ static void pppol2tp_recv_dequeue_skb(struct pppol2tp_session *session, struct s
>>  static void pppol2tp_recv_dequeue(struct pppol2tp_session *session)
>>  {
>>  	struct sk_buff *skb;
>> -	struct sk_buff *tmp;
>>   	/* If the pkt at the head of the queue has the nr that we
>>  	 * expect to send up next, dequeue it and any other
>>  	 * in-sequence packets behind it.
>>  	 */
>> +again:
>>  	spin_lock(&session->reorder_q.lock);
>> -	skb_queue_walk_safe(&session->reorder_q, skb, tmp) {
>> +	skb_queue_walk(&session->reorder_q, skb) {
>
> I think this needs the _safe() call because the list may be modified in  
> the loop body.

And you are very right.

>
>>  		if (time_after(jiffies, PPPOL2TP_SKB_CB(skb)->expires)) {
>>  			session->stats.rx_seq_discards++;
>>  			session->stats.rx_errors++;
>> @@ -469,9 +468,10 @@ static void pppol2tp_recv_dequeue(struct pppol2tp_session *session)
>>  				goto out;
>>  			}
>>  		}
>> +		__skb_unlink(skb, &session->reorder_q);
>>  		spin_unlock(&session->reorder_q.lock);
>> -		pppol2tp_recv_dequeue_skb(session, skb);
>> -		spin_lock(&session->reorder_q.lock);
>> +		pppol2tp_recv_requeue_skb(session, skb);
>> +		goto again;
>
> I'd prefer to take the spinlock again after the recv_dequeue_skb() call  
> to avoid the goto.

IMHO we have to do something like goto here because during the unlock
there could be everything changed (including tmp) in this list, but
maybe I miss something.

Anyway, this place seems to need more locking, e.g.: session->nr++ or
some other session accesses in pppol2tp_recv_dequeue_skb() are done
without locking. Maybe it would be interesting to try (in a test only)
with calling this with reorder_q.lock held (so without unlocking
inside this pppol2tp_recv_dequeue's loop at all: at least to see
possible lockdep report. I can't see how this irq disabling could
help for anything but some recursion during those misterious lockups.

BTW, since this bug is so hard to trigger, and it can take some time
yet, I think it would be better to merge to David's 2.6.26 tree at
least some parts of your "bh" patch and maybe other changes, which
don't seem to make it worse at least, to try new things on some common
base?

Regards,
Jarek P.
--
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