netdev - Re: [PATCH v3] netfilter: Xtables: idletimer target implementation

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: <4C10B954.9080603@trash.net>
Date:	Thu, 10 Jun 2010 12:07:16 +0200
From:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
To:	Luciano Coelho <luciano.coelho@...ia.com>
CC:	ext Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ozas.de>,
	"netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org" <netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Timo Teras <timo.teras@....fi>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] netfilter: Xtables: idletimer target implementation

Luciano Coelho wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-06-09 at 19:48 +0200, Coelho Luciano (Nokia-D/Helsinki)
> wrote:
>   
>> On Wed, 2010-06-09 at 17:18 +0200, ext Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>>     
>>>>>> +	timer = __idletimer_tg_find_by_label(info->label);
>>>>>> +	if (!timer) {
>>>>>> +		spin_unlock(&list_lock);
>>>>>> +		timer = idletimer_tg_create(info);
>>>>>>   
>>>>>>             
>>>>> How does this prevent creating the same timer twice?
>>>>>           
>>>> The timer will only be created if __idletimer_tg_find_by_label() returns
>>>> NULL, which means that no timer with that label has been found.  "info"
>>>> won't be the same if info->label is different, right? Or can it change
>>>> on the fly?
>>>>         
>>> One thing to be generally aware about is that things could potentially
>>> be instantiated by another entity between the time a label was looked up
>>> with negative result and the time one tries to add it.
>>> It may thus be required to extend keeping the lock until after
>>> idletimer_tg_create, in other words, lookup and create must be atomic
>>> to the rest of the world.
>>>       
>> Ahh, sure! I missed the actual point of Patrick's question.  I had the
>> idletimer_tg_create() inside the lock, but when I added the
>> sysfs_create_file() there (which can sleep), I screwed up with the
>> locking.
>>
>> I'll move the sysfs file creation to outside that function so I can keep
>> the lock until after the timer is added to the list.  Thanks for
>> clarifying!
>>     
>
> Hmmm... after struggling with this for a while, I think it's not really
> possible to simply create the sysfs file outside of the lock, because if
> the sysfs creation fails, we will again risk a race condition.
>
> I think the only way is to delay the sysfs file creation and do it in a
> workqueue.
>   

Why don't you simply use a mutex instead of the spinlock? It would be better
to only do the lookup once and store the timer pointer in the target
structure
anyways.
--
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