netdev - Re: [Bug #14301] WARNING: at net/ipv4/af

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: <4ACCB6BE.5040602@gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 07 Oct 2009 17:41:50 +0200
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Ralf Hildebrandt <Ralf.Hildebrandt@...rite.de>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Kernel Testers List <kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Wei Yongjun <yjwei@...fujitsu.com>,
	Takahiro Yasui <tyasui@...hat.com>,
	Hideo Aoki <haoki@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [Bug #14301] WARNING: at net/ipv4/af_inet.c:154

Eric Dumazet a écrit :
> Eric Dumazet a écrit :
>> Eric Dumazet a écrit :
>>> Rafael J. Wysocki a écrit :
>>>> This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
>>>> of regressions introduced between 2.6.30 and 2.6.31.
>>>>
>>>> The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
>>>> introduced between 2.6.30 and 2.6.31.  Please verify if it still should
>>>> be listed and let me know (either way).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bug-Entry	: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14301
>>>> Subject		: WARNING: at net/ipv4/af_inet.c:154
>>>> Submitter	: Ralf Hildebrandt <Ralf.Hildebrandt@...rite.de>
>>>> Date		: 2009-09-30 12:24 (2 days old)
>>>> References	: http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=125431350218137&w=4
>>>>
> 
> Investigation still needed...
> 

OK, my last (buggy ???) feeling is about commit 95766fff6b9a78d1

[UDP]: Add memory accounting.

(Its a two years old patch, oh well...)

Problem is the udp_poll() :

We check the first frame to be dequeued from sk_receive_queue has a good checksum.

If it doesnt, we drop the frame ( calling kfree_skb(skb); )

Problem is now we perform memory accounting on UDP, this kfree_skb()
should be done with socket locked, but we are allowed to
call lock_sock() from this udp_poll() context

unsigned int udp_poll(struct file *file, struct socket *sock, poll_table *wait)
{
        unsigned int mask = datagram_poll(file, sock, wait);
        struct sock *sk = sock->sk;
        int     is_lite = IS_UDPLITE(sk);

        /* Check for false positives due to checksum errors */
        if ((mask & POLLRDNORM) &&
            !(file->f_flags & O_NONBLOCK) &&
            !(sk->sk_shutdown & RCV_SHUTDOWN)) {
                struct sk_buff_head *rcvq = &sk->sk_receive_queue;
                struct sk_buff *skb;

                spin_lock_bh(&rcvq->lock);
                while ((skb = skb_peek(rcvq)) != NULL &&
                       udp_lib_checksum_complete(skb)) {
                        UDP_INC_STATS_BH(sock_net(sk),
                                        UDP_MIB_INERRORS, is_lite);
                        __skb_unlink(skb, rcvq);
<<HERE>>                kfree_skb(skb);
                }
                spin_unlock_bh(&rcvq->lock);



David, Herbert, any idea how to solve this problem ?

1) Allow false positives

Or

2) Maybe we should finally convert sk_forward_alloc to an atomic_t after all...
   This would make things easier, and speedup UDP (no more need to lock_sock())

Or 

3) ???

--
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