[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20181005.003815.1366909058469067585.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2018 00:38:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: xiyou.wangcong@...il.com
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, jiri@...nulli.us, jhs@...atatu.com,
vladbu@...lanox.com, idosch@...sch.org, jiri@...lanox.com
Subject: Re: [Patch net-next] net_sched: convert idrinfo->lock from
spinlock to a mutex
From: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2018 12:50:19 -0700
> In commit ec3ed293e766 ("net_sched: change tcf_del_walker() to take idrinfo->lock")
> we move fl_hw_destroy_tmplt() to a workqueue to avoid blocking
> with the spinlock held. Unfortunately, this causes a lot of
> troubles here:
>
> 1. tcf_chain_destroy() could be called right after we queue the work
> but before the work runs. This is a use-after-free.
>
> 2. The chain refcnt is already 0, we can't even just hold it again.
> We can check refcnt==1 but it is ugly.
>
> 3. The chain with refcnt 0 is still visible in its block, which means
> it could be still found and used!
>
> 4. The block has a refcnt too, we can't hold it without introducing a
> proper API either.
>
> We can make it working but the end result is ugly. Instead of wasting
> time on reviewing it, let's just convert the troubling spinlock to
> a mutex, which allows us to use non-atomic allocations too.
>
> Fixes: ec3ed293e766 ("net_sched: change tcf_del_walker() to take idrinfo->lock")
> Reported-by: Ido Schimmel <idosch@...sch.org>
> Cc: Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
> Cc: Vlad Buslov <vladbu@...lanox.com>
> Cc: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>
> Signed-off-by: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
Applied.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists