[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y2GG8EBUExowl8nQ@pop-os.localdomain>
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2022 13:52:00 -0700
From: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Cong Wang <cong.wang@...edance.com>,
shaozhengchao <shaozhengchao@...wei.com>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch net] kcm: fix a race condition in kcm_recvmsg()
On Sat, Oct 22, 2022 at 07:30:44PM -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> From: Cong Wang <cong.wang@...edance.com>
>
> sk->sk_receive_queue is protected by skb queue lock, but for KCM
> sockets its RX path takes mux->rx_lock to protect more than just
> skb queue, so grabbing skb queue lock is not necessary when
> mux->rx_lock is already held. But kcm_recvmsg() still only grabs
> the skb queue lock, so race conditions still exist.
>
> Close this race condition by taking mux->rx_lock in kcm_recvmsg()
> too. This way is much simpler than enforcing skb queue lock
> everywhere.
>
After a second thought, this actually could introduce a performance
regression as struct kcm_mux can be shared by multiple KCM sockets.
So, I am afraid we have to use the skb queue lock, fortunately I found
an easier way (comparing to Paolo's) to solve the skb peek race.
Zhengchao, could you please test the following patch?
Thanks!
---------------->
diff --git a/net/kcm/kcmsock.c b/net/kcm/kcmsock.c
index a5004228111d..890a2423f559 100644
--- a/net/kcm/kcmsock.c
+++ b/net/kcm/kcmsock.c
@@ -222,7 +222,7 @@ static void requeue_rx_msgs(struct kcm_mux *mux, struct sk_buff_head *head)
struct sk_buff *skb;
struct kcm_sock *kcm;
- while ((skb = __skb_dequeue(head))) {
+ while ((skb = skb_dequeue(head))) {
/* Reset destructor to avoid calling kcm_rcv_ready */
skb->destructor = sock_rfree;
skb_orphan(skb);
@@ -1085,53 +1085,17 @@ static int kcm_sendmsg(struct socket *sock, struct msghdr *msg, size_t len)
return err;
}
-static struct sk_buff *kcm_wait_data(struct sock *sk, int flags,
- long timeo, int *err)
-{
- struct sk_buff *skb;
-
- while (!(skb = skb_peek(&sk->sk_receive_queue))) {
- if (sk->sk_err) {
- *err = sock_error(sk);
- return NULL;
- }
-
- if (sock_flag(sk, SOCK_DONE))
- return NULL;
-
- if ((flags & MSG_DONTWAIT) || !timeo) {
- *err = -EAGAIN;
- return NULL;
- }
-
- sk_wait_data(sk, &timeo, NULL);
-
- /* Handle signals */
- if (signal_pending(current)) {
- *err = sock_intr_errno(timeo);
- return NULL;
- }
- }
-
- return skb;
-}
-
static int kcm_recvmsg(struct socket *sock, struct msghdr *msg,
size_t len, int flags)
{
struct sock *sk = sock->sk;
struct kcm_sock *kcm = kcm_sk(sk);
int err = 0;
- long timeo;
struct strp_msg *stm;
int copied = 0;
struct sk_buff *skb;
- timeo = sock_rcvtimeo(sk, flags & MSG_DONTWAIT);
-
- lock_sock(sk);
-
- skb = kcm_wait_data(sk, flags, timeo, &err);
+ skb = skb_recv_datagram(sk, flags, &err);
if (!skb)
goto out;
@@ -1162,14 +1126,11 @@ static int kcm_recvmsg(struct socket *sock, struct msghdr *msg,
/* Finished with message */
msg->msg_flags |= MSG_EOR;
KCM_STATS_INCR(kcm->stats.rx_msgs);
- skb_unlink(skb, &sk->sk_receive_queue);
- kfree_skb(skb);
}
}
out:
- release_sock(sk);
-
+ skb_free_datagram(sk, skb);
return copied ? : err;
}
@@ -1179,7 +1140,6 @@ static ssize_t kcm_splice_read(struct socket *sock, loff_t *ppos,
{
struct sock *sk = sock->sk;
struct kcm_sock *kcm = kcm_sk(sk);
- long timeo;
struct strp_msg *stm;
int err = 0;
ssize_t copied;
@@ -1187,11 +1147,7 @@ static ssize_t kcm_splice_read(struct socket *sock, loff_t *ppos,
/* Only support splice for SOCKSEQPACKET */
- timeo = sock_rcvtimeo(sk, flags & MSG_DONTWAIT);
-
- lock_sock(sk);
-
- skb = kcm_wait_data(sk, flags, timeo, &err);
+ skb = skb_recv_datagram(sk, flags, &err);
if (!skb)
goto err_out;
@@ -1219,13 +1175,11 @@ static ssize_t kcm_splice_read(struct socket *sock, loff_t *ppos,
* finish reading the message.
*/
- release_sock(sk);
-
+ skb_free_datagram(sk, skb);
return copied;
err_out:
- release_sock(sk);
-
+ skb_free_datagram(sk, skb);
return err;
}
Powered by blists - more mailing lists