netdev - Re: Crash due to mutex genl_lock called from RCU context

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: <CAM_iQpXB_LRqE83cWwU0ZDckLWPrMcZg-yD4+NKy+rBVz3YAyw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 27 Nov 2016 22:53:21 -0800
From:   Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To:     Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:     Subash Abhinov Kasiviswanathan <subashab@...eaurora.org>,
        Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>,
        Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Subject: Re: Crash due to mutex genl_lock called from RCU context

On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 8:23 AM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 2016-11-26 at 22:28 -0800, Cong Wang wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 6:26 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Are you telling me inet_release() is called when we close() the first
>> > file descriptor ?
>> >
>> > fd1 = socket()
>> > fd2 = dup(fd1);
>> > close(fd2) -> release() ???
>>
>> Sorry, I didn't express myself clearly, I meant your change,
>> if exclude the SOCK_RCU_FREE part, basically reverts this commit:
>>
>> commit 3f660d66dfbc13ea4b61d3865851b348444c24b4
>> Author: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
>> Date:   Thu May 3 03:17:14 2007 -0700
>>
>>     [NETLINK]: Kill CB only when socket is unused
>>
>> IOW, ->release() is called when the last sock fd ref is gone, but ->destructor()
>> is called with the last sock ref is gone. They are very different.
>
> Hmm...
>
>
>> I am confused, what Subash reported is a kernel warning which can
>> surely be fixed by removing genl lock (if it is correct, I need to double
>> check), so why for net-next?
>
> Because Subash pointed to a buggy commit.
>
> We want to fix all issues bring by this commit, not only the immediate
> problem about mutex.
>
> I have no idea if we can safely remove the mutex from genl_lock_done() :

I meant removing it only for the destructor case, we definitely can't remove
it for the dump case.

>
> The genl_lock() is not only protecting the socket itself, it might
> protect global data as well, or protect some kind of lock ordering among
> multiple mutexes.
>
> Have you checked all genl users, down to linux-4.0 , point where commit
> 21e4902aea80ef35a was added ?
>

I just took a deeper look, some user calls rhashtable_destroy() in ->done(),
so even removing that genl lock is not enough, perhaps we should just
move it to a work struct like what Daniel does for the tcf_proto, but that is
ugly... I don't know if RCU provides any API to execute the callback in process
context.