netdev - Re: [PATCH net] bonding: fix div by zero while enslaving and transmitting

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: <5413097B.9080802@redhat.com>
Date:	Fri, 12 Sep 2014 16:55:55 +0200
From:	Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...hat.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
CC:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
	Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>,
	Jay Vosburgh <j.vosburgh@...il.com>,
	Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] bonding: fix div by zero while enslaving and transmitting

On 09/12/2014 04:45 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-09-12 at 15:33 +0200, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
> 
>> One more thing, netdev_master_upper_dev_link_private() which is called
>> after the increment uses list_add_rcu() (i.e. rcu_assign_pointer) to insert
>> the slave, so there's a barrier there to ensure this is visible before the
>> slave is linked.
> 
> You missed my point.
> 
> You fixed the writer side, without adding barriers on the read side.
> 
> Without looking at the code, just reading your patch, I spot a problem.
> 
> Following code is fundamentally broken :
> 
> rcu_read_lock();
> 
> if (bond->list) {
>     x = y % bond->slave;  // bug : cpu could fetch bond->slave before  bond->list
> 
> rcu_read_unlock();
> 
> 
Ah yes, you're absolutely correct.
Then get the value of slave_cnt in a local variable using ACCESS_ONCE() + a
check for != 0 would be a better solution than adding a read barrier, what
do you think ?
Since it's not a problem to see slave_cnt > 0 when there're no slaves, but
the other way around is problematic.

> Because it needs a read barrier, since the writer does after your patch:
> 
> 	update bond->slave
> 	smp_wmb();
> 	update bond->list
> 
> I repeat : adding few rcu_read_lock() / rcu_read_unlock() /
> rcu_assign_pointer() calls is not enough to guarantee code is not
> broken.
> 
Yes, I see now.

Thanks,
 Nik
> 
> 
> --
> 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
> 

--
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