[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5d276659122cc_698f2aaeaaf925bc3e@john-XPS-13-9370.notmuch>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 09:39:53 -0700
From: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
Cc: ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
edumazet@...gle.com, bpf@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [bpf PATCH v2 6/6] bpf: sockmap/tls, close can race with map free
Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Jul 2019 20:33:58 -0700, John Fastabend wrote:
> > Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > On Mon, 08 Jul 2019 19:15:18 +0000, John Fastabend wrote:
> > > > @@ -352,15 +354,18 @@ static void tls_sk_proto_close(struct sock *sk, long timeout)
> > > > if (ctx->tx_conf == TLS_BASE && ctx->rx_conf == TLS_BASE)
> > > > goto skip_tx_cleanup;
> > > >
> > > > - sk->sk_prot = ctx->sk_proto;
> > > > tls_sk_proto_cleanup(sk, ctx, timeo);
> > > >
> > > > skip_tx_cleanup:
> > > > + write_lock_bh(&sk->sk_callback_lock);
> > > > + icsk->icsk_ulp_data = NULL;
> > >
> > > Is ulp_data pointer now supposed to be updated under the
> > > sk_callback_lock?
> >
> > Yes otherwise it can race with tls_update(). I didn't remove the
> > ulp pointer null set from tcp_ulp.c though. Could be done in this
> > patch or as a follow up.
>
> Do we need to hold the lock in unhash, too, or is unhash called with
> sk_callback_lock held?
>
We should hold the lock here. Also we should reset sk_prot similar to
other paths in case we get here without a close() call. syzbot hasn't
found that path yet but I'll add some tests for it.
write_lock_bh(...)
icsk_ulp_data = NULL
sk->sk_prot = ctx->sk_proto;
write_unlock_bh(...)
Thanks
Powered by blists - more mailing lists