netdev - Re: [PATCH net] sctp: not disable bh in the whole sctp_get_port

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: <661ff148-627d-3b1f-f450-015dafefd137@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 20 Aug 2020 06:13:01 -0700
From:   Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:     Xin Long <lucien.xin@...il.com>,
        network dev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     davem@...emloft.net, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>,
        Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] sctp: not disable bh in the whole
 sctp_get_port_local()



On 8/19/20 11:48 PM, Xin Long wrote:
> With disabling bh in the whole sctp_get_port_local(), when
> snum == 0 and too many ports have been used, the do-while
> loop will take the cpu for a long time and cause cpu stuck:
> 
>   [ ] watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#11 stuck for 22s!
>   [ ] RIP: 0010:native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath+0x4de/0x940
>   [ ] Call Trace:
>   [ ]  _raw_spin_lock+0xc1/0xd0
>   [ ]  sctp_get_port_local+0x527/0x650 [sctp]
>   [ ]  sctp_do_bind+0x208/0x5e0 [sctp]
>   [ ]  sctp_autobind+0x165/0x1e0 [sctp]
>   [ ]  sctp_connect_new_asoc+0x355/0x480 [sctp]
>   [ ]  __sctp_connect+0x360/0xb10 [sctp]
> 
> There's no need to disable bh in the whole function of
> sctp_get_port_local. So fix this cpu stuck by removing
> local_bh_disable() called at the beginning, and using
> spin_lock_bh() instead.
> 
> The same thing was actually done for inet_csk_get_port() in
> Commit ea8add2b1903 ("tcp/dccp: better use of ephemeral
> ports in bind()").
> 
> Thanks to Marcelo for pointing the buggy code out.
> 
> Fixes: 1da177e4c3f4 ("Linux-2.6.12-rc2")
> Reported-by: Ying Xu <yinxu@...hat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Xin Long <lucien.xin@...il.com>
> ---


Any reason you chose to not use a cond_resched() then ?

Clearly this function needs to yield, not only BH, but to other threads.