netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 01/12] net: sched: flower: don't check for rtnl on head dereference

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_iQpW9wv_0Rc96we2rkGGpeVnL3gJBxhQ9npuJ7WJsd8+MVQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 25 Feb 2019 14:39:36 -0800
From:   Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To:     Vlad Buslov <vladbu@...lanox.com>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 01/12] net: sched: flower: don't check for rtnl
 on head dereference

On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 8:11 AM Vlad Buslov <vladbu@...lanox.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri 22 Feb 2019 at 19:32, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > So if it is no longer RCU any more, why do you still use
> > rcu_dereference_protected()? That is, why not just deref it as a raw
> > pointer?


Any answer for this question?


> >
> > And, I don't think I can buy your argument here. The RCU infrastructure
> > should not be changed even after your patches, the fast path is still
> > protocted by RCU read lock, while the slow path now is protected by
> > some smaller-scope locks. What makes cls_flower so unique that
> > it doesn't even need RCU here? tp->root is not reassigned but it is still
> > freed via RCU infra, that is in fl_destroy_sleepable().
> >
> > Thanks.
>
> My cls API patch set introduced reference counting for tcf_proto
> structure. With that change tp->ops->destroy() (which calls fl_destroy()
> and fl_destroy_sleepable(), in case of flower classifier) is only called
> after last reference to tp is released. All slow path users of tp->ops
> must obtain reference to tp, so concurrent call to fl_destroy() is not
> possible. Before this change tcf_proto structure didn't have reference
> counting support and required users to obtain rtnl mutex before calling
> its ops callbacks. This was verified in flower by using rtnl_dereference
> to obtain tp->root.

Yes, but fast path doesn't hold a refnct of tp, does it? If not, you still
rely on RCU for sync with readers. If yes, then probably RCU can be
gone.

Now you are in a middle of the two, that is taking RCU read lock on
fast path without a refcnt, meanwhile still uses rcu_dereference on
slow paths without any lock.

For me, you at least don't use the RCU API correctly here.

Thanks.