netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] bonding: Fix RTNL: assertion failed at net/core/rtnetlink.c for 802.3ad mode

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]

Date:	Tue, 18 Feb 2014 12:53:46 +0100
From:	Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...hat.com>
To:	Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@...wei.com>,
	Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>,
	Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>,
	Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...hat.com>,
	Cong Wang <cwang@...pensource.com>,
	Thomas Glanzmann <thomas@...nzmann.de>,
	Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Scott Feldman <sfeldma@...ulusnetworks.com>,
	Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] bonding: Fix RTNL: assertion failed at net/core/rtnetlink.c
 for 802.3ad mode

On 02/18/2014 12:49 PM, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
> On 02/18/2014 12:25 PM, Ding Tianhong wrote:
>> The problem was introduced by the commit 1d3ee88ae0d
>> (bonding: add netlink attributes to slave link dev).
>> The bond_set_active_slave() and bond_set_backup_slave()
>> will use rtmsg_ifinfo to send slave's states, so these
>> two functions should be called in RTNL.
>>
>> In 802.3ad mode, acquiring RTNL for the __enable_port and
>> __disable_port cases is difficult, as those calls generally
>> already hold the state machine lock, and cannot unconditionally
>> call rtnl_lock because either they already hold RTNL (for calls
>> via bond_3ad_unbind_slave) or due to the potential for deadlock
>> with bond_3ad_adapter_speed_changed, bond_3ad_adapter_duplex_changed,
>> bond_3ad_link_change, or bond_3ad_update_lacp_rate.  All four of
>> those are called with RTNL held, and acquire the state machine lock
>> second.  The calling contexts for __enable_port and __disable_port
>> already hold the state machine lock, and may or may not need RTNL.
>>
>> According to the Jay's opinion, I don't think it is a problem that
>> the slave don't send notify message synchronously when the status
>> changed, normally the state machine is running every 100 ms, send
>> the notify message at the end of the state machine if the slave's
>> state changed should be better.
>>
>> I fix the problem through these steps:
>>
>> 1). add a new function bond_set_slave_state() which could change
>>     the slave's state and call rtmsg_ifinfo() according to the input
>>     parameters called notify.
>>
>> 2). Add a new slave parameter which called should_notify, if the slave's state
>>     changed and don't notify yet, the parameter will be set to 1, and then if
>>     the slave's state changed again, the param will be set to 0, it indicate that
>>     the slave's state has been restored, no need to notify any one.
>>
>> 3). the __enable_port and __disable_port should not call rtmsg_ifinfo
>>     in the state machine lock, any change in the state of slave could
>>     set a flag in the slave, it will indicated that an rtmsg_ifinfo
>>     should be called at the end of the state machine.
>>
>> Cc: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>
>> Cc: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...hat.com>
>> Cc: Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>
>> Signed-off-by: Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@...wei.com>
>> ---
> Hi Ding,
> I think there's a possible race condition which could lead to inconsistent
> state because you set slave->should_notify to 0 under RTNL but
> __disable_port can update it without RTNL e.g. can be called via
> bond_3ad_state_machine_handler -> ad_agg_selection_logic so in theory (I
> haven't tested it) they can execute concurrently. This is not a big deal
> though, but it would make this kind of message unreliable.
> 
> Nik
> 
Ah, missed where it gets updated, never mind this comment, it's fine.

--
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