netdev - Re: [PATCH net v2] net: core: make napi

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]

Date:   Wed, 14 Apr 2021 16:21:09 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Lijun Pan <lijunp213@...il.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2] net: core: make napi_disable more robust

On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 03:08:45 -0500 Lijun Pan wrote:
> There are chances that napi_disable can be called twice by NIC driver.
> This could generate deadlock. For example,
> the first napi_disable will spin until NAPI_STATE_SCHED is cleared
> by napi_complete_done, then set it again.
> When napi_disable is called the second time, it will loop infinitely
> because no dev->poll will be running to clear NAPI_STATE_SCHED.
> 
> Though it is driver writer's responsibility to make sure it being
> called only once, making napi_disable more robust does not hurt, not
> to say it can prevent a buggy driver from crashing a system.
> So, we check the napi state bit to make sure that if napi is already
> disabled, we exit the call early enough to avoid spinning infinitely.

You've already been told by Eric & Dave to fix the driver instead.

Your check is _not_ correct - SCHED && NPSVC && !MISSED && !BUSY_POLL 
can well arise without disabling the NAPI.

But regardless, a driver bug should be relatively easy to identify with
task getting stuck in napi_disable(). We don't provide "protection" 
for taking spin locks or ref counts twice either. Unless you can show 
a strong use case please stop posting new versions of this patch.