netdev - Re: [patch net-next v2 09/11] ipv4: fib: Add an API to request a FIB dump

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:   Thu, 24 Nov 2016 00:04:57 +0100
From:   Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
To:     Ido Schimmel <idosch@...sch.org>
Cc:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        davem@...emloft.net, idosch@...lanox.com, eladr@...lanox.com,
        yotamg@...lanox.com, nogahf@...lanox.com, arkadis@...lanox.com,
        ogerlitz@...lanox.com, roopa@...ulusnetworks.com,
        dsa@...ulusnetworks.com, nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com,
        andy@...yhouse.net, vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com,
        andrew@...n.ch, f.fainelli@...il.com, alexander.h.duyck@...el.com,
        kaber@...sh.net
Subject: Re: [patch net-next v2 09/11] ipv4: fib: Add an API to request a FIB
 dump

On 23.11.2016 20:53, Ido Schimmel wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 06:47:03PM +0100, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
>> Hmm, I think you need to read the sequence counter under rtnl_lock to
>> have an ordering with the rest of the updates to the RCU trie. Otherwise
>> you don't know if the fib trie has the correct view regarding to the
>> incoming notifications as a whole. This is also necessary during restarts.
>
> I spent quite a lot of time thinking about this specific issue, but I
> couldn't convince myself that the read should be done under RTNL and I'm
> not sure I understand your reasoning. Can you please elaborate?
>
> If, before each notification sent, we call atomic_inc() and then call
> atomic_read() at the end, then how can we be tricked?

The race I am suspecting to happen is:

<CPU0> fib_register()

<CPU1> delete route by notifier
<CPU1> enqueue delete cmd into ordered queue

<CPU0> starts dump
<CPU0> sees deleted route by CPU1 because route not yet removed from RCU
<CPU0> enqueues route for addition

sometimes later in the ordered queue:

delete route -> route not in hw, nop
add route from dump -> route added to hardware

The result should actually have been that route isn't in hw.

Bye,
Hannes