netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 net] inet: frags: rework rhashtable dismantle

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]

Date:   Tue, 2 Oct 2018 15:45:46 +0200
From:   Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
To:     Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
        Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net] inet: frags: rework rhashtable dismantle

On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 3:16 PM, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 1:19 AM Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 7:49 AM, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Does inet_frag_kill() hold fq->lock? I am missing how inet_frag_kill()
>> and inet_frags_exit_net() are synchronized.
>> Since you use smp_store_release()/READ_ONCE() they seem to run in
>> parallel. But then isn't it possible that inet_frag_kill() reads
>> nf->dead == 0, then inet_frags_exit_net() sets nf->dead, and then we
>> have the same race on concurrent removal? Or, isn't it possible that
>> inet_frag_kill() reads nf->dead == 1, but does not set
>> INET_FRAG_HASH_DEAD yet, and then inet_frags_free_cb() misses the
>> INET_FRAG_HASH_DEAD flag?
>>
>
> Yes this is kind of implied in my patch.
> I put the smp_store_release() and READ_ONCE exactly to document the
> possible races.
> This was the reason for my attempt in V1, doing a walk, but Herbert
> said walk was not designed for doing deletes.
>
> Proper synch will need a synchronize_rcu(), and thus a future
> conversion in net-next because we can not really
> add new synchronize_rcu() calls in an (struct
> pernet_operations.)exit() without considerable performance hit of
> netns dismantles.
>
> So this will require a conversion of all inet_frags_exit_net() callers
> to .exit_batch() to mitigate the cost.
>
> I thought of synchronize_rcu_bh() but this beast is going away soon anyway.

But if this patch allows all the same races and corruptions, then
what's the point?