netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v4 07/17] net: sched: protect filter_chain list with filter_chain

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: <CAM_iQpU=sFqoSZUZaeRM7d4ZFMqiEaY2mn1G_gB5KvkzLdcQgw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 18 Feb 2019 21:08:54 -0800
From:   Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To:     Vlad Buslov <vladbu@...lanox.com>
Cc:     Ido Schimmel <idosch@...sch.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "jhs@...atatu.com" <jhs@...atatu.com>,
        "jiri@...nulli.us" <jiri@...nulli.us>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "ast@...nel.org" <ast@...nel.org>,
        "daniel@...earbox.net" <daniel@...earbox.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 07/17] net: sched: protect filter_chain list
 with filter_chain_lock mutex

On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 2:02 AM Vlad Buslov <vladbu@...lanox.com> wrote:
>
> I looked at the code and problem seems to be matchall classifier
> specific. My implementation of unlocked cls API assumes that concurrent
> insertions are possible and checks for it when deleting "empty" tp.
> Since classifiers don't expose number of elements, the only way to test
> this is to do tp->walk() on them and assume that walk callback is called
> once per filter on every classifier. In your example new tp is created
> for second filter, filter insertion fails, number of elements on newly
> created tp is checked with tp->walk() before deleting it. However,
> matchall classifier always calls the tp->walk() callback once, even when
> it doesn't have a valid filter (in this case with NULL filter pointer).

Again, this can be eliminated by just switching to normal
non-retry logic. This is yet another headache to review this
kind of unlock-and-retry logic, I have no idea why you are such
a big fan of it.