netdev - Re: [PATCH net v2] net/smc: fix application data exception

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <b83577e6-8b0f-f8d0-150a-cfbb061adeb2@linux.alibaba.com>
Date:   Wed, 8 Mar 2023 22:11:34 +0800
From:   "D. Wythe" <alibuda@...ux.alibaba.com>
To:     Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     kgraul@...ux.ibm.com, wenjia@...ux.ibm.com, jaka@...ux.ibm.com,
        kuba@...nel.org, davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2] net/smc: fix application data exception


On 3/1/23 2:37 AM, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 02:39:05PM +0800, D. Wythe wrote:
>> From: "D. Wythe" <alibuda@...ux.alibaba.com>
>>
>> There is a certain probability that following
>> exceptions will occur in the wrk benchmark test:
>>
>> Running 10s test @ http://11.213.45.6:80
>>    8 threads and 64 connections
>>    Thread Stats   Avg      Stdev     Max   +/- Stdev
>>      Latency     3.72ms   13.94ms 245.33ms   94.17%
>>      Req/Sec     1.96k   713.67     5.41k    75.16%
>>    155262 requests in 10.10s, 23.10MB read
>> Non-2xx or 3xx responses: 3
>>
>> We will find that the error is HTTP 400 error, which is a serious
>> exception in our test, which means the application data was
>> corrupted.
>>
>> Consider the following scenarios:
>>
>> CPU0                            CPU1
>>
>> buf_desc->used = 0;
>>                                  cmpxchg(buf_desc->used, 0, 1)
>>                                  deal_with(buf_desc)
>>
>> memset(buf_desc->cpu_addr,0);
>>
>> This will cause the data received by a victim connection to be cleared,
>> thus triggering an HTTP 400 error in the server.
>>
>> This patch exchange the order between clear used and memset, add
>> barrier to ensure memory consistency.
>>
>> Fixes: 1c5526968e27 ("net/smc: Clear memory when release and reuse buffer")
>> Signed-off-by: D. Wythe <alibuda@...ux.alibaba.com>
>> ---
>> v2: rebase it with latest net tree.
>>
>>   net/smc/smc_core.c | 17 ++++++++---------
>>   1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/net/smc/smc_core.c b/net/smc/smc_core.c
>> index c305d8d..c19d4b7 100644
>> --- a/net/smc/smc_core.c
>> +++ b/net/smc/smc_core.c
>> @@ -1120,8 +1120,9 @@ static void smcr_buf_unuse(struct smc_buf_desc *buf_desc, bool is_rmb,
>>   
>>   		smc_buf_free(lgr, is_rmb, buf_desc);
>>   	} else {
>> -		buf_desc->used = 0;
>> -		memset(buf_desc->cpu_addr, 0, buf_desc->len);
>> +		/* memzero_explicit provides potential memory barrier semantics */
>> +		memzero_explicit(buf_desc->cpu_addr, buf_desc->len);
>> +		WRITE_ONCE(buf_desc->used, 0);
> This looks odd to me. memzero_explicit() is only sort of a compiler
> barrier, since it is a function call, but not a real memory barrier.
>
> You may want to check Documentation/memory-barriers.txt and
> Documentation/atomic_t.txt.
>
> To me the proper solution looks like buf_desc->used should be converted to
> an atomic_t, and then you could do:
>
> 	memset(buf_desc->cpu_addr, 0, buf_desc->len);
> 	smp_mb__before_atomic();
> 	atomic_set(&buf_desc->used, 0);
>
> and in a similar way use atomic_cmpxchg() instead of the now used cmpxchg()
> for the part that sets buf_desc->used to 1.
>
> Adding experts to cc, since s390 has such strong memory ordering semantics
> that you can basically do whatever you want without breaking anything. So I
> don't consider myself an expert here at all. :)
>
> But given that this is common code, let's make sure this is really correct.

Hi  Heiko,

I realize that you are completely right, and I will repair this problem 
according to your ideas.

Thank you very much!!!

Best wishes.

D. Wythe