netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] net: sched: bump refcount for new action in ACT replace mode

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: <ygnh8s63hhxy.fsf@nvidia.com>
Date:   Wed, 31 Mar 2021 10:59:37 +0300
From:   Vlad Buslov <vladbu@...dia.com>
To:     Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
CC:     Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@...il.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] net: sched: bump refcount for new action in ACT
 replace mode


On Wed 31 Mar 2021 at 07:40, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 3:55 PM Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
> <memxor@...il.com> wrote:
>> diff --git a/net/sched/act_api.c b/net/sched/act_api.c
>> index b919826939e0..43cceb924976 100644
>> --- a/net/sched/act_api.c
>> +++ b/net/sched/act_api.c
>> @@ -1042,6 +1042,9 @@ struct tc_action *tcf_action_init_1(struct net *net, struct tcf_proto *tp,
>>         if (err != ACT_P_CREATED)
>>                 module_put(a_o->owner);
>>
>> +       if (!bind && ovr && err == ACT_P_CREATED)
>> +               refcount_set(&a->tcfa_refcnt, 2);
>> +
>
> Hmm, if we set the refcnt to 2 here, how could tcf_action_destroy()
> destroy them when we rollback from a failure in the middle of the loop
> in tcf_action_init()?
>
> Thanks.

Hmm, you might be right. Also, the error handling code in
tcf_action_init() looks incorrect:

err:
	tcf_action_destroy(actions, bind);
err_mod:
	for (i = 0; i < TCA_ACT_MAX_PRIO; i++) {
		if (ops[i])
			module_put(ops[i]->owner);
	}
	return err;

It looks like here the modules for all actions that successfully
completed their init has already been release by either
tcf_action_init_1() on action overwrite or by tcf_action_destroy() on
action create. I'll try to come up with tests that validate these corner
cases.

Regards,
Vlad