netdev - Re: [PATCH 2/2] udp: RCU handling for Unicast packets.

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: <4908AD39.3090400@cosmosbay.com>
Date:	Wed, 29 Oct 2008 19:36:41 +0100
From:	Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
To:	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
CC:	Corey Minyard <minyard@....org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, shemminger@...tta.com,
	benny+usenet@...rsen.dk, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
	a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, johnpol@....mipt.ru,
	Christian Bell <christian@...i.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] udp: RCU handling for Unicast packets.

Paul E. McKenney a écrit :
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 06:32:29PM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>> Paul E. McKenney a écrit :
>>> On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 05:09:53PM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>>> Corey Minyard a écrit :
>>>>> Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>>>>> Corey Minyard found a race added in commit 
>>>>>> 271b72c7fa82c2c7a795bc16896149933110672d
>>>>>> (udp: RCU handling for Unicast packets.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "If the socket is moved from one list to another list in-between the 
>>>>>> time  the hash is calculated and the next field is accessed, and the 
>>>>>> socket  has moved to the end of the new list, the traversal will not 
>>>>>> complete  properly on the list it should have, since the socket will be 
>>>>>> on the end  of the new list and there's not a way to tell it's on a new 
>>>>>> list and  restart the list traversal.  I think that this can be solved 
>>>>>> by  pre-fetching the "next" field (with proper barriers) before 
>>>>>> checking the  hash."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This patch corrects this problem, introducing a new 
>>>>>> sk_for_each_rcu_safenext()
>>>>>> macro.
>>>>> You also need the appropriate smp_wmb() in udp_lib_get_port() after 
>>>>> sk_hash is set, I think, so the next field is guaranteed to be changed 
>>>>> after the hash value is changed.
>>>> Not sure about this one Corey.
>>>>
>>>> If a reader catches previous value of item->sk_hash, two cases are to be 
>>>> taken into :
>>>>
>>>> 1) its udp_hashfn(net, sk->sk_hash) is != hash   -> goto begin : Reader 
>>>> will redo its scan
>>>>
>>>> 2) its udp_hashfn(net, sk->sk_hash) is == hash
>>>>  -> next pointer is good enough : it points to next item in same hash 
>>>> chain.
>>>>     No need to rescan the chain at this point.
>>>>     Yes we could miss the fact that a new port was bound and this UDP 
>>>> message could be lost.
>>> 3) its udp_hashfn(net, sk-sk_hash) is == hash, but only because it was
>>> removed, freed, reallocated, and then readded with the same hash value,
>>> possibly carrying the reader to a new position in the same list.
>> yes, but 'new position' is 'before any not yet examined objects', since
>> we insert objects only at chain head.
> 
> OK.  However, this reasoning assumes that a socket with a given
> udp_hashfn() value will appear on one and only one list.  There are no
> side lists for sockets in other states?  (listen, &c)
> 
>>> You might well cover this (will examine your code in detail on my plane
>>> flight starting about 20 hours from now), but thought I should point it
>>> out.  ;-)
>> Yes, I'll double check too, this seems tricky :)
> 
> ;-)
> 
>> About SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU effect, we now have two different kmem_cache for 
>> "UDP-Lite"
>> and "UDP".
>>
>> This is expected, but we could avoid that and alias these caches, since
>> these objects have the same *type* . (The fields used for the RCU lookups,
>> deletes and inserts are the same)
>>
>> Maybe a hack in net/ipv4/udplite.c before calling proto_register(), to
>> copy the kmem_cache from UDP.
> 
> As long as this preserves the aforementioned assumption that a socket
> with a given hash can appear on one and only one list.  ;-)
> 

Ouch, thanks Paul, that is indeed the point, well sort of.

If a UDP socket is freed, and re-allocated as an UDP-Lite socket, inserted on
the udplite_table, then we would have a problem with current implementation.

A reader could be directed to the chain of the other hash table, without
noticing it should restart its lookup...

Not worth adding a check to detect such a scenario, we can live with two different
kmem_cache after all, they are not that expensive.


--
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