netdev - Re: [PATCH net] inet: add proper locking in __inet{6}

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: <1459171772.6473.86.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com>
Date:	Mon, 28 Mar 2016 06:29:32 -0700
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, lorenzo@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] inet: add proper locking in __inet{6}_lookup()

On Sun, 2016-03-27 at 22:32 -0400, David Miller wrote:
> From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
> Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 15:15:15 -0700
> 
> > From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
> > 
> > Blocking BH in __inet{6}_lookup() is not correct, as the lookups
> > are done using RCU protection.
> > 
> > It matters only starting from Lorenzo Colitti patches to destroy
> > a TCP socket, since rcu_read_lock() is already held by other users
> > of these functions.
> > 
> > This can be backported to all known stable versions, since TCP got RCU
> > lookups back in 2.6.29 : Even if iproute2 contained no code to trigger
> > the bug, some user programs could have used the API.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
> > Cc: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@...gle.com>
> 
> This is quite the maze of RCU locking here.  With this change,
> inet_lookup is now:
> 
> 	rcu_read_lock();
> 	sk = x(); {
> 		rcu_read_lock();
> 		...
> 		rcu_read_unlock();
> 	}
> 	if (!sk) {
> 		sk = y(); {
> 			rcu_read_lock();
> 			...
> 			rcu_read_unlock();
> 		}
> 	}
> 	rcu_read_unlock();
> 
> It would seem to me that we should bubble up the rcu locking calls.
> 
> If, as you say, the other users do RCU locking already, then it should
> be safe to do what your patch is doing and also remove the RCU locking
> done by __inet_lookup_established() and __inet_lookup_listener().
> 

Sure, but the caller changed quite a lot in all stable versions.

I took the easiest path for stable maintainers, and was planing to
implement a better way in net-next.

I certainly can take the final form and let you do the backports ?

Thanks.