netdev - Re: [PATCH net 2/2 RESEND] ipmr: Add lockdep expression to ipmr_for_each

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: <20200513053457.GA13541@madhuparna-HP-Notebook>
Date:   Wed, 13 May 2020 11:04:57 +0530
From:   Madhuparna Bhowmik <madhuparnabhowmik10@...il.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     Madhuparna Bhowmik <madhuparnabhowmik10@...il.com>,
        sfr@...b.auug.org.au, Amol Grover <frextrite@...il.com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
        Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 2/2 RESEND] ipmr: Add lockdep expression to
 ipmr_for_each_table macro

On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 09:32:31AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Tue, 12 May 2020 10:47:05 +0530 Madhuparna Bhowmik wrote:
> > > >  #ifdef CONFIG_IP_MROUTE_MULTIPLE_TABLES
> > > > -#define ipmr_for_each_table(mrt, net) \
> > > > -	list_for_each_entry_rcu(mrt, &net->ipv4.mr_tables, list, \
> > > > -				lockdep_rtnl_is_held())
> > > > +#define ipmr_for_each_table(mrt, net)					\
> > > > +	list_for_each_entry_rcu(mrt, &net->ipv4.mr_tables, list,	\
> > > > +				lockdep_rtnl_is_held() ||		\
> > > > +				lockdep_is_held(&pernet_ops_rwsem))  
> > > 
> > > This is a strange condition, IMHO. How can we be fine with either
> > > lock.. This is supposed to be the writer side lock, one can't have 
> > > two writer side locks..
> > > 
> > > I think what is happening is this:
> > > 
> > > ipmr_net_init() -> ipmr_rules_init() -> ipmr_new_table()
> > > 
> > > ipmr_new_table() returns an existing table if there is one, but
> > > obviously none can exist at init.  So a better fix would be:
> > > 
> > > #define ipmr_for_each_table(mrt, net)					\
> > > 	list_for_each_entry_rcu(mrt, &net->ipv4.mr_tables, list,	\
> > > 				lockdep_rtnl_is_held() ||		\
> > > 				list_empty(&net->ipv4.mr_tables))
> > >  
> > (adding Stephen)
> > 
> > Hi Jakub,
> > 
> > Thank you for your suggestion about this patch.
> > Here is a stack trace for ipmr.c:
> > 
> > [...]
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> > > Thoughts?  
> > 
> > Do you think a similar fix (the one you suggested) is also applicable
> > in the ip6mr case.
> 
> Yes, looking at the code it seems ip6mr has the exact same flow for
> netns init.

Alright, thanks a lot.
I will send a patch for ip6mr.c soon.

Thank you,
Madhuparna