netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 1/3] bpf: Implement map_delete_elem for BPF_MAP_TYPE_LPM

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: <59C141DC.9060200@iogearbox.net>
Date:   Tue, 19 Sep 2017 18:12:12 +0200
From:   Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To:     Craig Gallek <kraigatgoog@...il.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>
CC:     Daniel Mack <daniel@...que.org>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/3] bpf: Implement map_delete_elem for BPF_MAP_TYPE_LPM_TRIE

On 09/19/2017 05:08 PM, Craig Gallek wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 6:53 PM, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com> wrote:
>> On 9/18/17 12:30 PM, Craig Gallek wrote:
[...]
>>> +
>>> +               next_bit = extract_bit(key->data, node->prefixlen);
>>> +               /* If we hit a node that has more than one child or is a
>>> valid
>>> +                * prefix itself, do not remove it. Reset the root of the
>>> trim
>>> +                * path to its descendant on our path.
>>> +                */
>>> +               if (!(node->flags & LPM_TREE_NODE_FLAG_IM) ||
>>> +                   (node->child[0] && node->child[1]))
>>> +                       trim = &node->child[next_bit];
>>> +               node = rcu_dereference_protected(
>>> +                       node->child[next_bit],
>>> lockdep_is_held(&trie->lock));
>>> +       }
>>> +
>>> +       if (!node || node->prefixlen != key->prefixlen ||
>>> +           (node->flags & LPM_TREE_NODE_FLAG_IM)) {
>>> +               ret = -ENOENT;
>>> +               goto out;
>>> +       }
>>> +
>>> +       trie->n_entries--;
>>> +
>>> +       /* If the node we are removing is not a leaf node, simply mark it
>>> +        * as intermediate and we are done.
>>> +        */
>>> +       if (rcu_access_pointer(node->child[0]) ||
>>> +           rcu_access_pointer(node->child[1])) {
>>> +               node->flags |= LPM_TREE_NODE_FLAG_IM;
>>> +               goto out;
>>> +       }
>>> +
>>> +       /* trim should now point to the slot holding the start of a path
>>> from
>>> +        * zero or more intermediate nodes to our leaf node for deletion.
>>> +        */
>>> +       while ((node = rcu_dereference_protected(
>>> +                       *trim, lockdep_is_held(&trie->lock)))) {
>>> +               RCU_INIT_POINTER(*trim, NULL);
>>> +               trim = rcu_access_pointer(node->child[0]) ?
>>> +                       &node->child[0] :
>>> +                       &node->child[1];
>>> +               kfree_rcu(node, rcu);
>>
>> can it be that some of the nodes this loop walks have
>> both child[0] and [1] ?
> No, the loop above will push trim down the walk every time it
> encounters a node with two children.  The only other trim assignment
> is the initial trim = &trie->root.  But the only time we would skip
> the assignment in the loop is if the node being removed is the root.
> If the root had multiple children and is being removed, it would be
> handled by the case that turns the node into an intermediate node
> rather than walking the trim path freeing things.

Looks good to me. We should probably still merge nodes once we turn
a real node into an im which just has a single child attached to it;
parent can be im or real node. Thus, we don't need to traverse this
extra one on lookup.

Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>