netdev - Re: [PATCH 05/14] net: sched: always take reference to action

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: <vbfin7pm8zs.fsf@reg-r-vrt-018-180.mtr.labs.mlnx>
Date:   Tue, 15 May 2018 14:52:23 +0300
From:   Vlad Buslov <vladbu@...lanox.com>
To:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, jhs@...atatu.com,
        xiyou.wangcong@...il.com, pablo@...filter.org,
        kadlec@...ckhole.kfki.hu, fw@...len.de, ast@...nel.org,
        daniel@...earbox.net, edumazet@...gle.com, keescook@...omium.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org,
        coreteam@...filter.org, kliteyn@...lanox.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/14] net: sched: always take reference to action


On Tue 15 May 2018 at 08:58, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us> wrote:
> Mon, May 14, 2018 at 08:49:07PM CEST, vladbu@...lanox.com wrote:
>>
>>On Mon 14 May 2018 at 16:23, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us> wrote:
>>> Mon, May 14, 2018 at 04:27:06PM CEST, vladbu@...lanox.com wrote:
>>>>Without rtnl lock protection it is no longer safe to use pointer to tc
>>>>action without holding reference to it. (it can be destroyed concurrently)
>>>>
>>>>Remove unsafe action idr lookup function. Instead of it, implement safe tcf
>>>>idr check function that atomically looks up action in idr and increments
>>>>its reference and bind counters.
>>>>
>>>>Implement both action search and check using new safe function.
>>>>
>>>>Signed-off-by: Vlad Buslov <vladbu@...lanox.com>
>>>>---
>>>> net/sched/act_api.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++----------------------
>>>> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>>diff --git a/net/sched/act_api.c b/net/sched/act_api.c
>>>>index 1331beb..9459cce 100644
>>>>--- a/net/sched/act_api.c
>>>>+++ b/net/sched/act_api.c
>>>>@@ -284,44 +284,38 @@ int tcf_generic_walker(struct tc_action_net *tn, struct sk_buff *skb,
>>>> }
>>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(tcf_generic_walker);
>>>> 
>>>>-static struct tc_action *tcf_idr_lookup(u32 index, struct tcf_idrinfo *idrinfo)
>>>>+bool __tcf_idr_check(struct tc_action_net *tn, u32 index, struct tc_action **a,
>>>>+		     int bind)
>>>> {
>>>>-	struct tc_action *p = NULL;
>>>>+	struct tcf_idrinfo *idrinfo = tn->idrinfo;
>>>>+	struct tc_action *p;
>>>> 
>>>> 	spin_lock_bh(&idrinfo->lock);
>>>
>>> Why "_bh" variant is necessary here?
>>
>>It is not my code.
>
> Yeah, yet still I wonder :)

I've been looking into it and I don't understand why it is used either.
Looking at the commit history I see that long time ago rw_lock was used
instead of spinlock, and some actions implemented they own lookup
methods. So it seems that it might have been used to protect lookups
running in bh context. However, in current architecture classifiers hold
direct reference to action so action lookup is not used when processing
packets.