[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAM_iQpUejChnsMWx3Z59GTuxZMeBjgrs2rhd7gsQAKoxE8YuDg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2016 16:10:42 -0800
From: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-audit@...hat.com, Paul Moore <pmoore@...hat.com>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@...el.com>,
Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
syzkaller <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: netlink: GPF in sock_sndtimeo
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 2:02 AM, Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com> wrote:
> On 2016-12-09 20:13, Cong Wang wrote:
>> Netlink notifier can safely be converted to blocking one, I will send
>> a patch.
>
> I had a quick look at how that might happen. The netlink notifier chain
> is atomic. Would the registered callback funciton need to spawn a
> one-time thread to avoid blocking?
It is already non-atomic now:
https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=efa172f42836477bf1ac3c9a3053140df764699c
> I had a look at your patch. It looks attractively simple. The audit
> next tree has patches queued that add an audit_reset function that will
> require more work. I still see some potential gaps.
>
> - If the process messes up (or the sock lookup messes up) it is reset
> in the kauditd thread under the audit_cmd_mutex.
>
> - If the process exits normally or is replaced due to an audit_replace
> error, it is reset from audit_receive_skb under the audit_cmd_mutex.
>
> - If the process dies before the kauditd thread notices, either reap it
> via notifier callback or it needs a check on net exit to reset. This
> last one appears necessary to decrement the sock refcount so the sock
> can be released in netlink_kernel_release().
>
> If we want to be proactive and use the netlink notifier, we assume the
> overhead of adding to the netlink notifier chain and eliminate all the
> other reset calls under the kauditd thread. If we are ok being
> reactionary, then we'll at least need the net exit check on audit_sock.
>
I don't see why we need to check it in net exit if we use refcnt,
because we have two different users of audit_sock: kauditd and
netns, if both take care of refcnt properly, we don't need to worry
about who is the last, no matter what failures occur in what order.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists