netdev - Re: [Patch net-next] fib: move fib_rules_cleanup

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, 31 Mar 2015 10:30:48 -0700
From:	Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...hat.com>
To:	Cong Wang <cwang@...pensource.com>
CC:	Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Patch net-next] fib: move fib_rules_cleanup_ops() under rtnl
 lock


On 03/31/2015 09:47 AM, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 8:10 PM, Alexander Duyck
> <alexander.h.duyck@...hat.com> wrote:
>> On 03/30/2015 05:12 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
>>> 2) remove the unnecessary rules_mod_lock
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>
>> Please define "unnecessary" as we have had a bit of back and forth on how
>> our views can differ there.  As far as I know it still has to be held for
>> the fib_rule_ops list manipulation, specifically the call to list_del_rcu.
>> However, it doesn't need to be held when we call fib_rules_cleanup_ops.
>>
> Look at where rules_mod_lock are held: either when the net is initialized
> or when unregistering, neither of them really needs this per netns lock:
> new netns is not ready to expose;
> concurrent unregistering is prevented by upper layer locking,
> readers (lookup_rules_ops) hold RCU but we already should hold rtnl lock
> (after patch of course).

I would have almost agreed with you, however I noticed that decnet 
doesn't seem to follow the same rules as the rest of the callers to 
fib_rules_register.  It will simply call into module_init -> decnet_init 
-> dn_fib_init -> dn_fib_rules_injt -> fib_rules_register(&init_net).  
It probably just needs to be rewritten to use 
register_pernet_subsys/unregister_pernet_subsys, or correctly use the 
net_mutex, and then you could probably go head and tear out the 
rules_mod_lock since they would all be covered under the net_mutex.

- Alex
--
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