netdev - Re: [PATCH] ipv4: fix a RCU-list lock in fib_triestat_seq

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <8ae16be2-9c64-245e-0997-805f48078432@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 25 Mar 2020 11:31:27 -0700
From:   Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:     Qian Cai <cai@....pw>, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:     davem@...emloft.net, kuznet@....inr.ac.ru, yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org,
        kuba@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipv4: fix a RCU-list lock in fib_triestat_seq_show



On 3/25/20 10:34 AM, Qian Cai wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Mar 25, 2020, at 12:13 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>> I would prefer :
>>
>> diff --git a/net/ipv4/fib_trie.c b/net/ipv4/fib_trie.c
>> index ff0c24371e3309b3068980f46d1ed743337d2a3e..4b98ffb27136d3b43f179d6b1b42fe84586acc06 100644
>> --- a/net/ipv4/fib_trie.c
>> +++ b/net/ipv4/fib_trie.c
>> @@ -2581,6 +2581,7 @@ static int fib_triestat_seq_show(struct seq_file *seq, void *v)
>>                struct hlist_head *head = &net->ipv4.fib_table_hash[h];
>>                struct fib_table *tb;
>>
>> +               rcu_read_lock();
>>                hlist_for_each_entry_rcu(tb, head, tb_hlist) {
>>                        struct trie *t = (struct trie *) tb->tb_data;
>>                        struct trie_stat stat;
>> @@ -2596,6 +2597,7 @@ static int fib_triestat_seq_show(struct seq_file *seq, void *v)
>>                        trie_show_usage(seq, t->stats);
>> #endif
>>                }
>> +               rcu_read_unlock();
>>        }
>>
>>        return 0;
> 
> I have no strong opinion either way. My initial thought was to save 255 extra lock/unlock with a single lock/unlock, but I am not sure how time-consuming for each iteration of the outer loop could be. If it could take a bit too long, it does make a lot of sense to reduce the critical section.
> 


This file could be quite big in some setups.

Alternatively you could use cond_resched_rcu()