netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf] xdp: Handle device unregister for devmap

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: <87mudye45s.fsf@toke.dk>
Date:   Fri, 18 Oct 2019 12:31:11 +0200
From:   Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
To:     Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
Cc:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf] xdp: Handle device unregister for devmap_hash map type

Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com> writes:

> On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 9:07 AM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com> wrote:
>>
>> It seems I forgot to add handling of devmap_hash type maps to the device
>> unregister hook for devmaps. This omission causes devices to not be
>> properly released, which causes hangs.
>>
>> Fix this by adding the missing handler.
>>
>> Fixes: 6f9d451ab1a3 ("xdp: Add devmap_hash map type for looking up devices by hashed index")
>> Reported-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
>> Signed-off-by: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
>> ---
>>  kernel/bpf/devmap.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  1 file changed, 34 insertions(+)
>>
>
> [...]
>
>> +
>> +               while (dev) {
>> +                       odev = (netdev == dev->dev) ? dev : NULL;
>> +                       dev = hlist_entry_safe(rcu_dereference_raw(hlist_next_rcu(&dev->index_hlist)),
>
> Please run scripts/checkpatch.pl, this looks like a rather long line.

That was a deliberate departure from the usual line length, actually. I
don't think it helps readability to split that into three lines just to
adhere to a strict line length requirement...

-Toke