netdev - Re: [PATCH net 4/4] tcp: various missing rcu_read_lock around __sk_dst

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: <1459480383.6473.270.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com>
Date:	Thu, 31 Mar 2016 20:13:03 -0700
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
Cc:	davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	sasha.levin@...cle.com, daniel@...earbox.net,
	alexei.starovoitov@...il.com, mkubecek@...e.cz
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 4/4] tcp: various missing rcu_read_lock around
 __sk_dst_get

On Fri, 2016-04-01 at 04:01 +0200, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:

> I thought so first, as well. But given the double check for the 
> spin_lock and the "mutex" we end up with the same result for the 
> lockdep_sock_is_held check.
> 
> Do you see other consequences?

Well, we release the spinlock in __release_sock()

So another thread could come and acquire the socket, then call
mutex_acquire() while the first thread did not call yet mutex_release()

So maybe lockdep will complain (but I do not know lockdep enough to
tell)

So maybe the following would be better :

(Absolutely untested, really I need to take a break)

diff --git a/include/net/sock.h b/include/net/sock.h
index 255d3e03727b..7d5dfa7e1918 100644
--- a/include/net/sock.h
+++ b/include/net/sock.h
@@ -1327,7 +1327,13 @@ static inline void sk_wmem_free_skb(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb)
 
 static inline void sock_release_ownership(struct sock *sk)
 {
-	sk->sk_lock.owned = 0;
+	if (sk->sk_lock.owned) {
+		/*
+		 * The sk_lock has mutex_unlock() semantics:
+		 */
+		mutex_release(&sk->sk_lock.dep_map, 1, _RET_IP_);
+		sk->sk_lock.owned = 0;
+	}
 }
 
 /*
diff --git a/net/core/sock.c b/net/core/sock.c
index b67b9aedb230..c7ab98e72346 100644
--- a/net/core/sock.c
+++ b/net/core/sock.c
@@ -2429,10 +2429,6 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(lock_sock_nested);
 
 void release_sock(struct sock *sk)
 {
-	/*
-	 * The sk_lock has mutex_unlock() semantics:
-	 */
-	mutex_release(&sk->sk_lock.dep_map, 1, _RET_IP_);
 
 	spin_lock_bh(&sk->sk_lock.slock);
 	if (sk->sk_backlog.tail)