netdev - Re: [PATCH net 2/2] RDS: TCP: Synchrnozize accept() and connect() paths on t_conn

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <b5d93d46-5465-ce03-74b1-07136eac0cc9@oracle.com>
Date:	Mon, 2 May 2016 09:33:08 -0700
From:	Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@...cle.com>
To:	Sowmini Varadhan <sowmini.varadhan@...cle.com>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, rds-devel@....oracle.com
Cc:	davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 2/2] RDS: TCP: Synchrnozize accept() and connect()
 paths on t_conn_lock.

On 5/1/2016 4:10 PM, Sowmini Varadhan wrote:
> An arbitration scheme for duelling SYNs is implemented as part of
> commit 241b271952eb ("RDS-TCP: Reset tcp callbacks if re-using an
> outgoing socket in rds_tcp_accept_one()") which ensures that both nodes
> involved will arrive at the same arbitration decision. However, this
> needs to be synchronized with an outgoing SYN to be generated by
> rds_tcp_conn_connect(). This commit achieves the synchronization
> through the t_conn_lock mutex in struct rds_tcp_connection.
>
> The rds_conn_state is checked in rds_tcp_conn_connect() after acquiring
> the t_conn_lock mutex.  A SYN is sent out only if the RDS connection is
> not already UP (an UP would indicate that rds_tcp_accept_one() has
> completed 3WH, so no SYN needs to be generated).
>
> Similarly, the rds_conn_state is checked in rds_tcp_accept_one() after
> acquiring the t_conn_lock mutex. The only acceptable states (to
> allow continuation of the arbitration logic) are UP (i.e., outgoing SYN
> was SYN-ACKed by peer after it sent us the SYN) or CONNECTING (we sent
> outgoing SYN before we saw incoming SYN).
>
> Signed-off-by: Sowmini Varadhan <sowmini.varadhan@...cle.com>
> ---
>  net/rds/tcp.c         |    1 +
>  net/rds/tcp.h         |    4 ++++
>  net/rds/tcp_connect.c |    8 ++++++++
>  net/rds/tcp_listen.c  |   30 ++++++++++++++++++++----------
>  4 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
[...]

> diff --git a/net/rds/tcp_connect.c b/net/rds/tcp_connect.c
> index 5cb1687..49a3fcf 100644
> --- a/net/rds/tcp_connect.c
> +++ b/net/rds/tcp_connect.c
> @@ -78,7 +78,14 @@ int rds_tcp_conn_connect(struct rds_connection *conn)
>  	struct socket *sock = NULL;
>  	struct sockaddr_in src, dest;
>  	int ret;
> +	struct rds_tcp_connection *tc = conn->c_transport_data;
> +
> +	mutex_lock(&tc->t_conn_lock);
>
> +	if (rds_conn_up(conn)) {
> +		mutex_unlock(&tc->t_conn_lock);
> +		return 0;
> +	}
>  	ret = sock_create_kern(rds_conn_net(conn), PF_INET,
>  			       SOCK_STREAM, IPPROTO_TCP, &sock);
>  	if (ret < 0)
> @@ -120,6 +127,7 @@ int rds_tcp_conn_connect(struct rds_connection *conn)
>  	}
>
>  out:
> +	mutex_unlock(&tc->t_conn_lock);
Just wondering whether the spin_lock() would better here considering
entry into rds_tcp_conn_connect() & rds_tcp_accept_one() might be
from softirq context. Ignore it if its not applicable.

>  	if (sock)
>  		sock_release(sock);
>  	return ret;
> diff --git a/net/rds/tcp_listen.c b/net/rds/tcp_listen.c
> index 0896187..cc8496f 100644
> --- a/net/rds/tcp_listen.c
> +++ b/net/rds/tcp_listen.c
> @@ -76,7 +76,9 @@ int rds_tcp_accept_one(struct socket *sock)
>  	struct rds_connection *conn;
>  	int ret;
>  	struct inet_sock *inet;
> -	struct rds_tcp_connection *rs_tcp;
> +	struct rds_tcp_connection *rs_tcp = NULL;
> +	int conn_state;
> +	struct sock *nsk;
>
>  	ret = sock_create_kern(sock_net(sock->sk), sock->sk->sk_family,
>  			       sock->sk->sk_type, sock->sk->sk_protocol,
> @@ -116,6 +118,10 @@ int rds_tcp_accept_one(struct socket *sock)
>  	 */
>  	rs_tcp = (struct rds_tcp_connection *)conn->c_transport_data;
>  	rds_conn_transition(conn, RDS_CONN_DOWN, RDS_CONN_CONNECTING);
Like patch 1/2, probably we can leverage return value of above.


> +	conn_state = rds_conn_state(conn);
> +	if (conn_state != RDS_CONN_CONNECTING && conn_state != RDS_CONN_UP)
You probably don't need the local 'conn_state' and below should work.
	if (!rds_conn_connecting(conn) && !rds_conn_up(conn))

Regards,
Santosh