Date:   Tue, 18 Sep 2018 11:53:17 +0200
From:   Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To:     Vakul Garg <vakul.garg@....com>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:     Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        davejwatson@...com, doronrk@...com
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the net tree

On 09/18/2018 11:32 AM, Vakul Garg wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2018 2:57 PM
>> To: Vakul Garg <vakul.garg@....com>; Stephen Rothwell
>> <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>; David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>;
>> Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
>> Cc: Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>; Linux Kernel
>> Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
>> Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the net tree
>>
>> On 09/18/2018 11:10 AM, Vakul Garg wrote:
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2018 2:14 PM
>>>> To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>; David Miller
>>>> <davem@...emloft.net>; Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
>>>> Cc: Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>; Linux
>>>> Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>; Vakul Garg
>>>> <vakul.garg@....com>
>>>> Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the
>>>> net tree
>>>>
>>>> On 09/18/2018 02:11 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> Today's linux-next merge of the net-next tree got a conflict in:
>>>>>
>>>>>   tools/testing/selftests/net/tls.c
>>>>>
>>>>> between commit:
>>>>>
>>>>>   50c6b58a814d ("tls: fix currently broken MSG_PEEK behavior")
>>>>>
>>>>> from the net tree and commit:
>>>>>
>>>>>   c2ad647c6442 ("selftests/tls: Add test for recv(PEEK) spanning
>>>>> across multiple records")
>>>>>
>>>>> from the net-next tree.
>>>>>
>>>>> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
>>>>> is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
>>>>> conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your
>>>>> tree is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider
>>>>> cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise
>>>>> any particularly complex conflicts.
>>>>
>>>> The test from 50c6b58a814d supersedes the one from c2ad647c6442 so
>>>> the recv_peek_large_buf_mult_recs could be removed; latter was also
>>>> not working correctly due to this bug.
>>>
>>> Why remove recv_peek_large_buf_mult_recs if its correct?
>>> Why not the newly added one which achieves the same thing?
>>
>> Hmm, not quite, on net-next kernel, the recv_peek_large_buf_mult_recs fails
>> every time I invoke the tls test suite:
>>
>> # ./tls
>> [==========] Running 28 tests from 2 test cases.
>> [ RUN      ] tls.sendfile
>> [       OK ] tls.sendfile
>> [ RUN      ] tls.send_then_sendfile
>> [       OK ] tls.send_then_sendfile
>> [ RUN      ] tls.recv_max
>> [       OK ] tls.recv_max
>> [ RUN      ] tls.recv_small
>> [       OK ] tls.recv_small
>> [ RUN      ] tls.msg_more
>> [       OK ] tls.msg_more
>> [ RUN      ] tls.sendmsg_single
>> [       OK ] tls.sendmsg_single
>> [ RUN      ] tls.sendmsg_large
>> [       OK ] tls.sendmsg_large
>> [ RUN      ] tls.sendmsg_multiple
>> [       OK ] tls.sendmsg_multiple
>> [ RUN      ] tls.sendmsg_multiple_stress
>> [       OK ] tls.sendmsg_multiple_stress
>> [ RUN      ] tls.splice_from_pipe
>> [       OK ] tls.splice_from_pipe
>> [ RUN      ] tls.splice_from_pipe2
>> [       OK ] tls.splice_from_pipe2
>> [ RUN      ] tls.send_and_splice
>> [       OK ] tls.send_and_splice
>> [ RUN      ] tls.splice_to_pipe
>> [       OK ] tls.splice_to_pipe
>> [ RUN      ] tls.recvmsg_single
>> [       OK ] tls.recvmsg_single
>> [ RUN      ] tls.recvmsg_single_max
>> [       OK ] tls.recvmsg_single_max
>> [ RUN      ] tls.recvmsg_multiple
>> [       OK ] tls.recvmsg_multiple
>> [ RUN      ] tls.single_send_multiple_recv
>> [       OK ] tls.single_send_multiple_recv
>> [ RUN      ] tls.multiple_send_single_recv
>> [       OK ] tls.multiple_send_single_recv
>> [ RUN      ] tls.recv_partial
>> [       OK ] tls.recv_partial
>> [ RUN      ] tls.recv_nonblock
>> [       OK ] tls.recv_nonblock
>> [ RUN      ] tls.recv_peek
>> [       OK ] tls.recv_peek
>> [ RUN      ] tls.recv_peek_multiple
>> [       OK ] tls.recv_peek_multiple
>> [ RUN      ] tls.recv_peek_large_buf_mult_recs
>> tls.c:524:tls.recv_peek_large_buf_mult_recs:Expected memcmp(test_str,
>> buf, len) (18446744073709551595) == 0 (0)
>> tls.recv_peek_large_buf_mult_recs: Test failed at step #8
>> [     FAIL ] tls.recv_peek_large_buf_mult_recs
>> [ RUN      ] tls.pollin
>> [       OK ] tls.pollin
>> [ RUN      ] tls.poll_wait
>> [       OK ] tls.poll_wait
>> [ RUN      ] tls.blocking
>> [       OK ] tls.blocking
>> [ RUN      ] tls.nonblocking
>> [       OK ] tls.nonblocking
>> [ RUN      ] tls.control_msg
>> [       OK ] tls.control_msg
>> [==========] 27 / 28 tests passed.
>> [  FAILED  ]
>>
>> Here's what the recvfrom() with MSG_PEEK sees:
>>
>> [pid  2602] socket(AF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, IPPROTO_IP) = 3 [pid  2602]
>> socket(AF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, IPPROTO_IP) = 4 [pid  2602] bind(4,
>> {sa_family=AF_INET, sin_port=htons(0), sin_addr=inet_addr("0.0.0.0")}, 16) =
>> 0
>> [pid  2602] listen(4, 10)               = 0
>> [pid  2602] getsockname(4, {sa_family=AF_INET, sin_port=htons(41483),
>> sin_addr=inet_addr("0.0.0.0")}, [16]) = 0 [pid  2602] connect(3,
>> {sa_family=AF_INET, sin_port=htons(41483), sin_addr=inet_addr("0.0.0.0")},
>> 16) = 0 [pid  2602] setsockopt(3, SOL_TCP, 0x1f /* TCP_??? */, [7564404], 4)
>> = 0 [pid  2602] setsockopt(3, 0x11a /* SOL_?? */, 1,
>> "\3\0033\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0"...,
>> 40) = 0 [pid  2602] accept(4, {sa_family=AF_INET, sin_port=htons(46290),
>> sin_addr=inet_addr("127.0.0.1")}, [16]) = 5 [pid  2602] setsockopt(5,
>> SOL_TCP, 0x1f /* TCP_??? */, [7564404], 4) = 0 [pid  2602] setsockopt(5,
>> 0x11a /* SOL_?? */, 2,
>> "\3\0033\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0"...,
>> 40) = 0
>> [pid  2602] close(4)                    = 0
>> [pid  2602] sendto(3, "test_read_peek", 14, 0, NULL, 0) = 14 [pid  2602]
>> sendto(3, "_mult_recs\0", 11, 0, NULL, 0) = 11 [pid  2602] recvfrom(5,
>> "test_read_peektest_read_peektest"..., 64, MSG_PEEK, NULL, NULL) = 64
>> [pid  2602] write(2, "tls.c:526:tls.recv_peek_large_bu"...,
>> 112tls.c:526:tls.recv_peek_large_buf_mult_recs:Expected memcmp(test_str,
>> buf, len) (18446744073709551595) == 0 (0)
>> ) = 112
>> [pid  2602] close(3)                    = 0
>> [pid  2602] close(5)                    = 0
>> [pid  2602] exit_group(8)               = ?
>>
>> Reason for the "test_read_peektest_read_peektest[...]" is because
>> MSG_PEEK cannot call tls_sw_advance_skb(), since the skb is sitting there
>> that needs to be consumed for non-MSG_PEEK case, and only then we can
>> advance it.
> 
> I general, my plan was to modify the tls_sw_recvmsg() to trigger as many 
> decryption as possible as required by requested user space PEEK size.
> This would have required creating a pending list of decrypted records in tls_tx context.

Right, had been thinking the same though for a fix in -net it would have been
way too intrusive, hence the 50c6b58a814d ("tls: fix currently broken MSG_PEEK
behavior") to avoid looping the same record which is clearly a bug. Wondering
if DaveW's original rationale was to avoid accumulating too many records in the
kernel since we would need to unpause strparser and keep processing the deeper
we peek.

>> Could you elaborate on where you ever had this test succeeding? With nxp
>> accelerator?
>  
> I never had this test succeeding. I pointed the problem to Dave Watson sometime
> back (found during code reading). 
> 
> To make sure that this bug does not slip out, I simply submitted a test case to keep
> reminding ourselves that we need to fix it sometime.

Ok, I think usually tests assert current kernel behavior to make sure any changes
coming in don't accidentally break expectations from applications as opposed to
future tests that still need fixing, but I guess I'm fine either way how to resolve
the conflict; leaving it up to DaveM. Thanks for clarifying!

Cheers,
Daniel

Powered by blists - more mailing lists