netdev - Re: [PATCH V3] neigh: Really delete an arp/neigh entry on "ip neigh delete" or "arp -d"

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: <alpine.LFD.2.20.1706010059370.10214@ja.home.ssi.bg>
Date:   Thu, 1 Jun 2017 01:41:41 +0300 (EEST)
From:   Julian Anastasov <ja@....bg>
To:     Sowmini Varadhan <sowmini.varadhan@...cle.com>
cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net,
        stephen@...workplumber.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3] neigh: Really delete an arp/neigh entry on "ip neigh
 delete" or "arp -d"


	Hello,

On Wed, 31 May 2017, Sowmini Varadhan wrote:

> On (06/01/17 00:41), Julian Anastasov wrote:
> > 
> > 	So, we do not hold reference to neigh while accessing
> > its fields. I suspect we need to move the table lock from
> > neigh_remove_one here, for example:
> 
> good point, let me think over your suggestion carefully (it sounds
> right, I want to make sure I dont miss any other race-windows)
> and post patch v4 tomorrow..

	Another problem is that neigh_update() changes the
state but before we go and unlink the entry another CPU
can reactivate the entry, i.e. NUD_INCOMPLETE entered
in __neigh_event_send(). So, there will be always some
small window where surprises can happen and the entry is
not really deleted.

	Checking for NUD_FAILED may not be needed, the
atomic_read(&n->refcnt) == 1 check under lock ensures
that we are in some state without timer, i.e. not in
NUD_INCOMPLETE, so it is ok to remove the entry.

> > 	Another solution to cause faster removal would be
> > to cancel the gc_work and to schedule it after 1 jiffie.
> > It helps when many entries are deleted at once but the
> > work prefers to just sleep when gc_thresh1 is not reached,
> > so such solution is not good enough.
> 
> Right the other drawback of relying on gc for cleanup is
> that it doesn't give higher preference to cleaning up FAILED
> entries first- so it can end up cleaning up other useful entries
> (as I was pointing out to David Ahern)

	I see, ok.

Regards

--
Julian Anastasov <ja@....bg>