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]

Message-ID: <CANn89iL4jbHG3Les01c8Sx=7S5Vjkpr7UT1JEqB2m71-JMW6qg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 2 Oct 2018 07:32:39 -0700
From:   Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
To:     Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...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 7:28 AM Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 4:04 PM, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 6:46 AM Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> 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?
> >
> > Not really. The current races can last dozen of seconds, if youu have
> > one million frags.
> >
> > With the fix, the race is in the order of one usec on typical hosts.
>
> Ah, I see. A known bug probably worth a comment in the code.

Plan is to use proper synchronize_rcu() in net-next

For net tree, I prefer not having to deal with backports hassle since
netns dismantles got many changes last 6 months.