netdev - Re: [PATCH v3 net 05/17] ratelimit: Fix data-races in __

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: <20220822191445.21807-1-kuniyu@amazon.com>
Date:   Mon, 22 Aug 2022 12:14:45 -0700
From:   Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...zon.com>
To:     <edumazet@...gle.com>
CC:     <davem@...emloft.net>, <kuba@...nel.org>, <kuni1840@...il.com>,
        <kuniyu@...zon.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <pabeni@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 net 05/17] ratelimit: Fix data-races in ___ratelimit().

From:   Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Date:   Mon, 22 Aug 2022 12:00:11 -0700
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 11:29 AM Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...zon.com> wrote:
> >
> > While reading rs->interval and rs->burst, they can be changed
> > concurrently.  Thus, we need to add READ_ONCE() to their readers.
> >
> > Fixes: 1da177e4c3f4 ("Linux-2.6.12-rc2")
> > Signed-off-by: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...zon.com>
> > ---
> >  lib/ratelimit.c | 8 +++++---
> >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/lib/ratelimit.c b/lib/ratelimit.c
> > index e01a93f46f83..b59a1d3d0cc3 100644
> > --- a/lib/ratelimit.c
> > +++ b/lib/ratelimit.c
> > @@ -26,10 +26,12 @@
> >   */
> >  int ___ratelimit(struct ratelimit_state *rs, const char *func)
> >  {
> > +       int interval = READ_ONCE(rs->interval);
> > +       int burst = READ_ONCE(rs->burst);
> 
> I thought rs->interval and rs->burst were constants...
> 
> Can you point to the part where they are changed ?
> 
> Ideally such a patch should also add corresponding WRITE_ONCE(), and
> comments to pair them,
>  this would really help reviewing it.

In this case, &net_ratelimit_state.(burst|interval) are directly
passed to proc_handlers, and exactly the relation is unclear.

As Jakub pointed out, two reads can be inconsistent, so I'll add
a spin lock in struct ratelimit_state and two dedicated proc
handlers for each member.  Then, I'll add few more comments to
make that relation clear.

Thanks for feedback!


> >         unsigned long flags;
> >         int ret;
> >
> > -       if (!rs->interval)
> > +       if (!interval)
> >                 return 1;
> >
> >         /*
> > @@ -44,7 +46,7 @@ int ___ratelimit(struct ratelimit_state *rs, const char *func)
> >         if (!rs->begin)
> >                 rs->begin = jiffies;
> >
> > -       if (time_is_before_jiffies(rs->begin + rs->interval)) {
> > +       if (time_is_before_jiffies(rs->begin + interval)) {
> >                 if (rs->missed) {
> >                         if (!(rs->flags & RATELIMIT_MSG_ON_RELEASE)) {
> >                                 printk_deferred(KERN_WARNING
> > @@ -56,7 +58,7 @@ int ___ratelimit(struct ratelimit_state *rs, const char *func)
> >                 rs->begin   = jiffies;
> >                 rs->printed = 0;
> >         }
> > -       if (rs->burst && rs->burst > rs->printed) {
> > +       if (burst && burst > rs->printed) {
> >                 rs->printed++;
> >                 ret = 1;
> >         } else {
> > --
> > 2.30.2
> >