netdev - Re: [Bonding-devel] [PATCH] bonding: cancel_delayed_work() -> cancel_delayed_work

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: <97949e3e0912171325n12b4749dof2612391a71e74d9@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 17 Dec 2009 13:25:06 -0800
From:	Laurent Chavey <chavey@...gle.com>
To:	Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>
Cc:	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>,
	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
	Mikhail Markine <markine@...gle.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	bonding-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	Petri Gynther <pgynther@...gle.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [Bonding-devel] [PATCH] bonding: cancel_delayed_work() -> 
	cancel_delayed_work_sync()

On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com> wrote:
> Laurent Chavey <chavey@...gle.com> wrote:
>
>>one instance that could be a problem
>>
>>__exit bonding_exit(void)
>>    bond_free_all()
>>       bond_work_cancel_all(bond);
>>        unregister_netdevice(bond_dev)
>>
>>could the above result in an invalid pointer when trying
>>to use bond-> in one of the timer CB ?
>
>        The bonding teardown logic was reworked in October, and there is
> no longer a bond_free_all in the current mainline.  What kernel are you
> looking at?
not mainline :-), switched to mainline, see it as you do. thx

>
>        The bond_close function will stop the various work items, and
> the ndo_uninit (bond_uninit) will call bond_work_cancel_all as well.
>
>        Actually, on looking at it (it being current mainline),
> bond_uninit might need some kind of logic to wait and insure that all
> timers have completed before returning.  It comes from unregister, so
> the next thing that happens after it returns is that the memory will be
> freed (via netdev_run_todo, during rtnl_unlock, if I'm following it
> correctly).
>
>        The bond_uninit function is called under RTNL, though, so the
> timer functions (bond_mii_monitor, et al) may need additional checks for
> kill_timers to insure they don't attempt to acquire RTNL if a cancel is
> pending.
>
>        That's kind of tricky itself, since the lock ordering requires
> RTNL to be acquired first, so there's no way for bond_mii_monitor (et
> al) to check for kill_timers prior to already having RTNL (because the
> function acquires RTNL conditionally, only if needed; to do that, it
> unlocks the bond lock, then acquires RTNL, then re-locks the bond lock).
>
>        So, the lock dance to acquire RTNL in bond_mii_monitor (et al)
> would need some trickery, perhaps a rtnl_trylock loop, that checks
> kill_timers each time the trylock fails, e.g.,
>
>        if (bond_miimon_inspect(bond)) {
>                read_unlock(&bond->lock);
>                while (!rtnl_trylock) {
>                        read_lock(&bond->lock);
>                        if (bond->kill_timers)
>                                goto out;
>                        read_unlock(&bond->lock);
>                        /* msleep ? */
>                }
>
>                bond_miimon_commit(bond);
>                [...]
>
>        So, with the above (and similar changes to the other delayed
> work functions, and a big honkin' comment somewhere to explain this), I
> suspect that bond_work_cancel_all could use the _sync variant to cancel
> the work, as long as kill_timers is set before the cancel_sync is
> called.
>
>        Am I missing anything?  Does this seem rational?
>
yes it does. the _sync variant should cover the hole.


>>On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 10:40 AM, Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 08:12:53AM -0800, Jay Vosburgh wrote:
>>>>       There's already logic in the monitors (bond_mii_monitor, et al)
>>>> to check a sentinel (kill_timers) and do nothing (not acquire rtnl) and
>>>> return.
>>>
>>> Btw, this check should be repeated if bond->lock is given back and
>>> re-acquired. I can't see these kill_timers used in bond_sysfs.c though.
>
>        Yes, this is true, and I think that doing this in the above
> manner may eliminate the problem.
>
>>>>       What exactly is the nature of the race that doing cancel..sync
>>>> is fixing?  The bond_close function sets kill_timers prior to calling
>>>> the cancel functions, so the monitor function might run once, but it
>>>> should do nothing.
>>>
>>> I guess there is a problem with destructions, but I hope Mikhail will
>>> give more details.
>
>        -J
>
> ---
>        -Jay Vosburgh, IBM Linux Technology Center, fubar@...ibm.com
>
--
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