netdev - Re: [BUG] pfifo_fast may cause out-of-order CAN frame transmission

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <5e9b81f5-018d-0680-2d0b-55ff3bfb978f@hartkopp.net>
Date:   Thu, 6 Feb 2020 18:06:44 +0100
From:   Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>
To:     Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@...gutronix.de>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-can@...r.kernel.org,
        Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [BUG] pfifo_fast may cause out-of-order CAN frame transmission

Hi Paolo,

On 06/02/2020 14.21, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-02-04 at 17:25 +0100, Ahmad Fatoum wrote:
>> Hello Paolo,
>>
>> On 1/20/20 5:06 PM, Ahmad Fatoum wrote:
>>> Hello Paolo,
>>>
>>> On 1/16/20 1:40 PM, Paolo Abeni wrote:
>>>> I'm sorry for this trial & error experience. I tried to reproduce the
>>>> issue on top of the vcan virtual device, but it looks like it requires
>>>> the timing imposed by a real device, and it's missing here (TL;DR: I
>>>> can't reproduce the issue locally).
>>>
>>> No worries. I don't mind testing.
>>>
>>>> Code wise, the 2nd patch closed a possible race, but it dumbly re-
>>>> opened the one addressed by the first attempt - the 'empty' field must
>>>> be cleared prior to the trylock operation, or we may end-up with such
>>>> field set and the queue not empty.
>>>>
>>>> So, could you please try the following code?
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, I still see observe reodering.
>>
>> Any news?
> 
> I'm unable to find any better solution than a revert. That will cost
> some small performace regression, so I'm a bit reluctant to go ahead.
> If there is agreement I can post the revert.

Is it possible that the current pfifo_fast handling has some additional 
problems:

https://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=158092393613669&w=2

Or is this unrelated?

Best,
Oliver