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  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]
Date:	Fri, 22 Jun 2012 08:44:06 -0500
From:	Josh Hunt <>
To:	Eric Dumazet <>
CC:	"" <>,
	"" <>,
	Debabrata Banerjee <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>
Subject: Re: Bug in net/ipv6/ip6_fib.c:fib6_dump_table()

On 06/22/2012 03:29 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-06-22 at 01:49 -0500, Josh Hunt wrote:
>> On 06/21/2012 03:27 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2012-06-21 at 14:35 -0500, Josh Hunt wrote:
>>>> Can anyone provide details of the crash which was intended to be fixed
>>>> by 2bec5a369ee79576a3eea2c23863325089785a2c? With this patch in and
>>>> doing concurrent adds/deletes and dumping the table via netlink causes
>>>> duplicate entries to be reported. Reverting this patch causes those
>>>> problems to go away. We can provide a more detailed test if that is
>>>> needed, but so far our testing has been unable to reproduce the crash
>>>> mentioned in the above commit with it reverted.
>>> A mere revert wont be enough.
>>> Looking at this code, it lacks proper synchronization
>>> between tree updaters and tree walkers.
>>> fib6_walker_lock rwlock is not enough to prevent races.
>>> Are you willing to fix this yourself ?
>> Looking through the code a bit more it seems like we would need to have
>> a lock in fib6_walker_t to protect its contents. Mainly for when we
>> update the pointers in fib6_del_route and fib6_repair_tree. Right now
>> there is the fib6_walker_lock, but that appears to only be protecting
>> the elements of the list, not their contents. Is this what you had in
>> mind? I just coded up something along these lines and it works for the
>> most part, but I also got a message about unsafe lock ordering when I
>> stressed it so I am messing something up. If this sounds like it's on
>> the right track I can work out the kinks in the morning.
> Hmm, it seems tb6_lock is held by a writer, so its safe :
> a tree walker can run only holding a read_lock on tb6_lock

Ahh. That makes sense and is what Alexey said before I just didn't put
it all together. So we are OK reverting this patch? I cannot find a path
where the walker's pointers are updated without the tb6_lock write_lock.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists