netdev - Re: kernel BUG in ipmr_queue

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: <20151030104846.GA3461@breakpoint.cc>
Date:	Fri, 30 Oct 2015 11:48:46 +0100
From:	Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
To:	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
Cc:	Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	Ani Sinha <ani@...sta.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	ani@...rban.org, fruggeri@...sta.com
Subject: Re: kernel BUG in ipmr_queue_xmit()

Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org> wrote:
> > > > @@ -936,7 +936,9 @@ static void ipmr_cache_resolve(struct net *net, struct mr_table *mrt,
> > > >  
> > > >  			rtnl_unicast(skb, net, NETLINK_CB(skb).portid);
> > > >  		} else {
> > > > +			preempt_disable();
> > > >  			ip_mr_forward(net, mrt, skb, c, 0);
> > > > +			preempt_enable();
> > > >  		}
> > > >  	}
> > > >  }
> > > 
> > > I do not believe this fix is correct.
> > 
> > Yes, sorry.  I should have suggested local_bh_disable instead.
> > 
> > > Better replace the
> > > IP_INC_STATS_BH() by IP_INC_STATS()
> > >
> > > and IP_ADD_STATS_BH() by IP_ADD_STATS()
> > 
> > Hmm, whats the rationale for this?
> > 
> > Note that IP_ADD_STATS_BH in question is unconditional (not in
> > error path).  It seems that its virtually always called from softirq
> > except in the setsockopt case.
> 
> The naming of the functions is bad if you compare them to e.g.
> spin_lock_bh.
> 
> STATS_BH can only be used from bottom half and the normal ones (without
> _BH) can be called from everywhere. It is a common pattern in the
> kernel.
> 
> Eric's proposal is correct.

Yes, its correct but it results in 4 additonal bh on/off calls
for the common case, hence my question.

Moving the one ip_mr_forward into bh-off keeps the bh-disable thing
in the setsockopt path.
--
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