netdev - Re: [PATCH 2/5] rhashtable: don't hold lock on first table throughout insertion.

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: <87r2jtpqm4.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name>
Date:   Tue, 24 Jul 2018 07:52:03 +1000
From:   NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>
To:     paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc:     Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] rhashtable: don't hold lock on first table throughout insertion.

On Mon, Jul 23 2018, Paul E. McKenney wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 09:13:43AM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 22 2018, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>> >
>> > One issue is that the ->func pointer can legitimately be NULL while on
>> > RCU's callback lists.  This happens when someone invokes kfree_rcu()
>> > with the rcu_head structure at the beginning of the enclosing structure.
>> > I could add an offset to avoid this, or perhaps the kmalloc() folks
>> > could be persuaded Rao Shoaib's patch moving kfree_rcu() handling to
>> > the slab allocators, so that RCU only ever sees function pointers in
>> > the ->func field.
>> >
>> > Either way, this should be hidden behind an API to allow adjustments
>> > to be made if needed.  Maybe something like is_after_call_rcu()?
>> > This would (for example) allow debug-object checks to be used to catch
>> > check-after-free bugs.
>> >
>> > Would something of that sort work for you?
>> 
>> Yes, if you could provide an is_after_call_rcu() API, that would
>> perfectly suit my use-case.
>
> After beating my head against the object-debug code a bit, I have to ask
> if it would be OK for you if the is_after_call_rcu() API also takes the
> function that was passed to RCU.

Sure.  It feels a bit clumsy, but I can see it could be easier to make
robust.
So yes: I'm fine with pass the same function and rcu_head to both
call_rcu() and is_after_call_rcu().  Actually, when I say it like that,
it seems less clumsy :-)

Thanks,
NeilBrown

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (833 bytes)