[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4CC018E1.3000906@iki.fi>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 13:41:37 +0300
From: Timo Teräs <timo.teras@....fi>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
CC: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipv4: synchronize bind() with RTM_NEWADDR notifications
On 10/21/2010 01:25 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Le jeudi 21 octobre 2010 à 13:12 +0300, Timo Teräs a écrit :
>> Otherwise we have race condition to user land:
>> 1. process A changes IP address
>> 2. kernel sends RTM_NEWADDR
>> 3. process B gets notification
>> 4. process B tries to bind() to new IP but that fails with
>> EADDRNOTAVAIL because FIB is not yet updated and inet_addr_type() in
>> inet_bind() does not recognize the IP as local
>> 5. kernel calls inetaddr_chain notifiers which updates FIB
>>
>> IPv6 side seems to handle the notifications properly: bind()
>> immediately after RTM_NEWADDR succeeds as expected. This is because
>> ipv6_chk_addr() uses inet6_addr_lst which is updated before address
>> notification.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Timo Teräs <timo.teras@....fi>
>> ---
>> net/ipv4/af_inet.c | 9 +++++++++
>> net/ipv6/af_inet6.c | 4 +++-
>> 2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/net/ipv4/af_inet.c b/net/ipv4/af_inet.c
>> index 6a1100c..21200e4 100644
>> --- a/net/ipv4/af_inet.c
>> +++ b/net/ipv4/af_inet.c
>> @@ -466,6 +466,15 @@ int inet_bind(struct socket *sock, struct sockaddr *uaddr, int addr_len)
>> if (addr_len < sizeof(struct sockaddr_in))
>> goto out;
>>
>> + /* Acquire rtnl_lock to synchronize with possible simultaneous
>> + * IP-address changes. This is needed because when RTM_NEWADDR
>> + * is sent the new IP is not yet in FIB, but alas inet_addr_type
>> + * checks the address type using FIB. Acquiring rtnl lock once
>> + * makse sure that any address for which RTM_NEWADDR was sent
>> + * earlier exists also in FIB. */
>> + rtnl_lock();
>> + rtnl_unlock();
>
> You must be kidding ?
>
> Really, this is a hot path...
Is inet_bind() called from non-userland context? If yes, then this is a
bad idea. Otherwise I don't think it's that hot path...
The other idea of doing notifier calls before RTM_NEWADDR sending is
worse because it changes ordering of userland visible netlink notifications.
This looked like the easiest way out. If this is unacceptable, I guess
we are left with changing inet_addr_type() to not use FIB.
Or is there better ideas?
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists