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, 23 Apr 2019 07:43:28 +0000
From:   Vlad Buslov <vladbu@...lanox.com>
To:     Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>
CC:     "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Vlad Buslov <vladbu@...lanox.com>,
        "jhs@...atatu.com" <jhs@...atatu.com>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com" <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>,
        "xiyou.wangcong@...il.com" <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
        "jiri@...nulli.us" <jiri@...nulli.us>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: sched: flower: refactor reoffload for
 concurrent access


On Mon 22 Apr 2019 at 23:34, Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-04-22 at 10:21 +0300, Vlad Buslov wrote:
>> Recent changes that introduced unlocked flower did not properly
>> account for
>> case when reoffload is initiated concurrently with filter updates. To
>> fix
>> the issue, extend flower with 'hw_filters' list that is used to store
>> filters that don't have 'skip_hw' flag set. Filter is added to the
>> list
>> when it is inserted to hardware and only removed from it after being
>> unoffloaded from all drivers that parent block is attached to. This
>> ensures
>> that concurrent reoffload can still access filter that is being
>> deleted and
>> prevents race condition when driver callback can be removed when
>> filter is
>> no longer accessible trough idr, but is still present in hardware.
>>
>> Refactor fl_change() to respect new filter reference counter and to
>> release
>> filter reference with __fl_put() in case of error, instead of
>> directly
>> deallocating filter memory. This allows for concurrent access to
>> filter
>> from fl_reoffload() and protects it with reference counting. Refactor
>> fl_reoffload() to iterate over hw_filters list instead of idr.
>> Implement
>> fl_get_next_hw_filter() helper function that is used to iterate over
>> hw_filters list with reference counting and skips filters that are
>> being
>> concurrently deleted.
>>
>> Fixes: 92149190067d ("net: sched: flower: set unlocked flag for
>> flower proto ops")
>> Signed-off-by: Vlad Buslov <vladbu@...lanox.com>
>> Reported-by: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
>> ---
>>  net/sched/cls_flower.c | 77 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
>> --
>>  1 file changed, 57 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/net/sched/cls_flower.c b/net/sched/cls_flower.c
>> index 4b5585358699..524b86560af3 100644
>> --- a/net/sched/cls_flower.c
>> +++ b/net/sched/cls_flower.c
>> @@ -90,6 +90,7 @@ struct cls_fl_head {
>>  	struct rhashtable ht;
>>  	spinlock_t masks_lock; /* Protect masks list */
>>  	struct list_head masks;
>> +	struct list_head hw_filters;
>>  	struct rcu_work rwork;
>>  	struct idr handle_idr;
>>  };
>> @@ -102,6 +103,7 @@ struct cls_fl_filter {
>>  	struct tcf_result res;
>>  	struct fl_flow_key key;
>>  	struct list_head list;
>> +	struct list_head hw_list;
>>  	u32 handle;
>>  	u32 flags;
>>  	u32 in_hw_count;
>> @@ -315,6 +317,7 @@ static int fl_init(struct tcf_proto *tp)
>>
>>  	spin_lock_init(&head->masks_lock);
>>  	INIT_LIST_HEAD_RCU(&head->masks);
>> +	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&head->hw_filters);
>>  	rcu_assign_pointer(tp->root, head);
>>  	idr_init(&head->handle_idr);
>>
>> @@ -352,6 +355,16 @@ static bool fl_mask_put(struct cls_fl_head
>> *head, struct fl_flow_mask *mask)
>>  	return true;
>>  }
>>
>> +static struct cls_fl_head *fl_head_dereference(struct tcf_proto *tp)
>> +{
>> +	/* Flower classifier only changes root pointer during init and
>> destroy.
>> +	 * Users must obtain reference to tcf_proto instance before
>> calling its
>> +	 * API, so tp->root pointer is protected from concurrent call
>> to
>> +	 * fl_destroy() by reference counting.
>> +	 */
>> +	return rcu_dereference_raw(tp->root);
>> +}
>> +
>>  static void __fl_destroy_filter(struct cls_fl_filter *f)
>>  {
>>  	tcf_exts_destroy(&f->exts);
>> @@ -382,6 +395,8 @@ static void fl_hw_destroy_filter(struct tcf_proto
>> *tp, struct cls_fl_filter *f,
>>
>>  	tc_setup_cb_call(block, TC_SETUP_CLSFLOWER, &cls_flower,
>> false);
>>  	spin_lock(&tp->lock);
>> +	if (!list_empty(&f->hw_list))
>> +		list_del_init(&f->hw_list);
>>  	tcf_block_offload_dec(block, &f->flags);
>>  	spin_unlock(&tp->lock);
>>
>> @@ -393,6 +408,7 @@ static int fl_hw_replace_filter(struct tcf_proto
>> *tp,
>>  				struct cls_fl_filter *f, bool
>> rtnl_held,
>>  				struct netlink_ext_ack *extack)
>>  {
>> +	struct cls_fl_head *head = fl_head_dereference(tp);
>>  	struct tc_cls_flower_offload cls_flower = {};
>>  	struct tcf_block *block = tp->chain->block;
>>  	bool skip_sw = tc_skip_sw(f->flags);
>> @@ -444,6 +460,9 @@ static int fl_hw_replace_filter(struct tcf_proto
>> *tp,
>>  		goto errout;
>>  	}
>>
>> +	spin_lock(&tp->lock);
>> +	list_add(&f->hw_list, &head->hw_filters);
>> +	spin_unlock(&tp->lock);
>>  errout:
>>  	if (!rtnl_held)
>>  		rtnl_unlock();
>> @@ -475,23 +494,11 @@ static void fl_hw_update_stats(struct tcf_proto
>> *tp, struct cls_fl_filter *f,
>>  		rtnl_unlock();
>>  }
>>
>> -static struct cls_fl_head *fl_head_dereference(struct tcf_proto *tp)
>> -{
>> -	/* Flower classifier only changes root pointer during init and
>> destroy.
>> -	 * Users must obtain reference to tcf_proto instance before
>> calling its
>> -	 * API, so tp->root pointer is protected from concurrent call
>> to
>> -	 * fl_destroy() by reference counting.
>> -	 */
>> -	return rcu_dereference_raw(tp->root);
>> -}
>> -
>>  static void __fl_put(struct cls_fl_filter *f)
>>  {
>>  	if (!refcount_dec_and_test(&f->refcnt))
>>  		return;
>>
>> -	WARN_ON(!f->deleted);
>> -
>>  	if (tcf_exts_get_net(&f->exts))
>>  		tcf_queue_work(&f->rwork, fl_destroy_filter_work);
>>  	else
>> @@ -1522,6 +1529,7 @@ static int fl_change(struct net *net, struct
>> sk_buff *in_skb,
>>  		err = -ENOBUFS;
>>  		goto errout_tb;
>>  	}
>> +	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&fnew->hw_list);
>>  	refcount_set(&fnew->refcnt, 1);
>>
>>  	err = tcf_exts_init(&fnew->exts, net, TCA_FLOWER_ACT, 0);
>> @@ -1569,7 +1577,6 @@ static int fl_change(struct net *net, struct
>> sk_buff *in_skb,
>>  		goto errout_hw;
>>  	}
>>
>> -	refcount_inc(&fnew->refcnt);
>>  	if (fold) {
>>  		/* Fold filter was deleted concurrently. Retry lookup.
>> */
>>  		if (fold->deleted) {
>> @@ -1591,6 +1598,7 @@ static int fl_change(struct net *net, struct
>> sk_buff *in_skb,
>>  			in_ht = true;
>>  		}
>>
>> +		refcount_inc(&fnew->refcnt);
>>  		rhashtable_remove_fast(&fold->mask->ht,
>>  				       &fold->ht_node,
>>  				       fold->mask->filter_ht_params);
>> @@ -1631,6 +1639,7 @@ static int fl_change(struct net *net, struct
>> sk_buff *in_skb,
>>  		if (err)
>>  			goto errout_hw;
>>
>> +		refcount_inc(&fnew->refcnt);
>>  		fnew->handle = handle;
>>  		list_add_tail_rcu(&fnew->list, &fnew->mask->filters);
>>  		spin_unlock(&tp->lock);
>> @@ -1642,19 +1651,20 @@ static int fl_change(struct net *net, struct
>> sk_buff *in_skb,
>>  	kfree(mask);
>>  	return 0;
>>
>> +errout_ht:
>> +	spin_lock(&tp->lock);
>>  errout_hw:
>> +	fnew->deleted = true;
>>  	spin_unlock(&tp->lock);
>>  	if (!tc_skip_hw(fnew->flags))
>>  		fl_hw_destroy_filter(tp, fnew, rtnl_held, NULL);
>> -errout_ht:
>>  	if (in_ht)
>>  		rhashtable_remove_fast(&fnew->mask->ht, &fnew->ht_node,
>>  				       fnew->mask->filter_ht_params);
>>  errout_mask:
>>  	fl_mask_put(head, fnew->mask);
>>  errout:
>> -	tcf_exts_get_net(&fnew->exts);
>> -	tcf_queue_work(&fnew->rwork, fl_destroy_filter_work);
>> +	__fl_put(fnew);
>>  errout_tb:
>>  	kfree(tb);
>>  errout_mask_alloc:
>> @@ -1699,16 +1709,44 @@ static void fl_walk(struct tcf_proto *tp,
>> struct tcf_walker *arg,
>>  	}
>>  }
>>
>> +static struct cls_fl_filter *
>> +fl_get_next_hw_filter(struct tcf_proto *tp, struct cls_fl_filter *f,
>> bool add)
>> +{
>> +	struct cls_fl_head *head = fl_head_dereference(tp);
>> +
>> +	spin_lock(&tp->lock);
>> +	if (!f) {
>> +		if (list_empty(&head->hw_filters)) {
>> +			spin_unlock(&tp->lock);
>> +			return NULL;
>> +		}
>
> Shouldn't this be a pre-condition to the whole function ? i mean
> regardless of whether 'f' is NULL or not ?

List can't be empty if we already have an element of the list (f), so
why check this on every iteration?

>
>> +
>> +		f = list_first_entry(&head->hw_filters, struct
>> cls_fl_filter,
>> +				     hw_list);
>> +	} else {
>> +		f = list_next_entry(f, hw_list);
>> +	}
>> +
>
> Maybe if you use  list_for_each_entry_continue below, might simplify
> the above logic. it is weird that you need to figure out next entry
> then call list_for_each_from, list 'continue' variation is made for
> such use cases.

list_for_each_entry_continue requires initialized cursor and will skip
first element if we obtain initial cursor with list_first_entry(). We
can have two loops - one that uses list_for_each_entry for initial
iteration, and another one that uses list_for_each_entry_continue for
case when f!=NULL, but I don't see how that would be any simpler.

>
>> +	list_for_each_entry_from(f, &head->hw_filters, hw_list) {
>> +		if (!(add && f->deleted) && refcount_inc_not_zero(&f-
>> >refcnt)) {
>> +			spin_unlock(&tp->lock);
>> +			return f;
>> +		}
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	spin_unlock(&tp->lock);
>> +	return NULL;
>> +}
>> +
>>  static int fl_reoffload(struct tcf_proto *tp, bool add,
>> tc_setup_cb_t *cb,
>>  			void *cb_priv, struct netlink_ext_ack *extack)
>>  {
>>  	struct tc_cls_flower_offload cls_flower = {};
>>  	struct tcf_block *block = tp->chain->block;
>> -	unsigned long handle = 0;
>> -	struct cls_fl_filter *f;
>> +	struct cls_fl_filter *f = NULL;
>>  	int err;
>>
>> -	while ((f = fl_get_next_filter(tp, &handle))) {
>> +	while ((f = fl_get_next_hw_filter(tp, f, add))) {
>>  		if (tc_skip_hw(f->flags))
>>  			goto next_flow;
>
> this can never be true as it is already a pre-condition for
> fl_hw_replace_filter which actually adds  to the hw_filters list, i
> think it needs to be removed. if it is, then i think it should be part
> of fl_get_next_hw_filter and not the caller responsibility.

Good catch.

>
>>
>> @@ -1757,7 +1795,6 @@ static int fl_reoffload(struct tcf_proto *tp,
>> bool add, tc_setup_cb_t *cb,
>>  					  add);
>>  		spin_unlock(&tp->lock);
>>  next_flow:
>> -		handle++;
>>  		__fl_put(f);
>>  	}
>>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists