netdev - Re: [Patch bpf-next v8 10/16] sock: introduce sk->sk_prot->psock_update_sk

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: <CAM_iQpVd8s0yqMLOR2B5uBxKFzWWZYoZ20WAN2MjcVEiiHX++A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 6 Apr 2021 11:30:28 -0700
From:   Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To:     Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, duanxiongchun@...edance.com,
        Dongdong Wang <wangdongdong.6@...edance.com>,
        Jiang Wang <jiang.wang@...edance.com>,
        Cong Wang <cong.wang@...edance.com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@...udflare.com>,
        Lorenz Bauer <lmb@...udflare.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch bpf-next v8 10/16] sock: introduce sk->sk_prot->psock_update_sk_prot()

On Mon, Apr 5, 2021 at 1:25 AM Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 3/31/21 4:32 AM, Cong Wang wrote:
> > From: Cong Wang <cong.wang@...edance.com>
> >
> > Currently sockmap calls into each protocol to update the struct
> > proto and replace it. This certainly won't work when the protocol
> > is implemented as a module, for example, AF_UNIX.
> >
> > Introduce a new ops sk->sk_prot->psock_update_sk_prot(), so each
> > protocol can implement its own way to replace the struct proto.
> > This also helps get rid of symbol dependencies on CONFIG_INET.
>
> [...]
>
>
> >
> > -struct proto *tcp_bpf_get_proto(struct sock *sk, struct sk_psock *psock)
> > +int tcp_bpf_update_proto(struct sock *sk, bool restore)
> >  {
> > +     struct sk_psock *psock = sk_psock(sk);
>
> I do not think RCU is held here ?
>
> sk_psock() is using rcu_dereference_sk_user_data()

Right, I just saw the syzbot report. But here we already have
the writer lock of sk_callback_lock, hence RCU read lock here
makes no sense to me. Probably we just have to tell RCU we
already have sk_callback_lock.

Thanks.