netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 1/4] net: fix possible race in skb_attempt_defer

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: <20220516115454.18fbc4e1@kernel.org>
Date:   Mon, 16 May 2022 11:54:54 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Cc:     Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/4] net: fix possible race in
 skb_attempt_defer_free()

On Mon, 16 May 2022 11:24:40 -0700 Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 11:16 AM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
> > If I'm reading this right this is useful for backports but in net-next
> > it really is a noop? The -EBUSY would be perfectly safe to ignore?
> > Just checking.  
> 
> Not sure I understand the question.
> 
> trigger_rx_softirq() and friends were only in net-next, so there is no
> backport needed.
> 
> Are you talking of calls from net_rps_send_ipi() ?
> These are fine, because we own an atomic bit (NAPI_STATE_SCHED).

Ah, I think I get it now. It was unclear what's the problem this patch
is solving this part of the commit message really is key:

> This is a common issue with smp_call_function_single_async().
> Callers must ensure correct synchronization and serialization.

smp_call_function_single_async() does not protect its own internal state
so we need to wrap it in our own locking (of some form thereof).

Sorry for the noise.