[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <160346a2-1158-2f07-b793-39abaac11f14@mojatatu.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2023 12:24:52 -0300
From: Pedro Tammela <pctammela@...atatu.com>
To: Vlad Buslov <vladbu@...dia.com>, Ivan Vecera <ivecera@...hat.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
jhs@...atatu.com, xiyou.wangcong@...il.com, jiri@...nulli.us,
marcelo.leitner@...il.com, paulb@...dia.com,
simon.horman@...igine.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 2/2] net/sched: flower: fix error handler on replace
On 26/04/2023 11:46, Vlad Buslov wrote:
> On Wed 26 Apr 2023 at 11:22, Pedro Tammela <pctammela@...atatu.com> wrote:
>> On 26/04/2023 09:14, Vlad Buslov wrote:
>>> When replacing a filter (i.e. 'fold' pointer is not NULL) the insertion of
>>> new filter to idr is postponed until later in code since handle is already
>>> provided by the user. However, the error handling code in fl_change()
>>> always assumes that the new filter had been inserted into idr. If error
>>> handler is reached when replacing existing filter it may remove it from idr
>>> therefore making it unreachable for delete or dump afterwards. Fix the
>>> issue by verifying that 'fold' argument wasn't provided by caller before
>>> calling idr_remove().
>>> Fixes: 08a0063df3ae ("net/sched: flower: Move filter handle initialization
>>> earlier")
>>> Signed-off-by: Vlad Buslov <vladbu@...dia.com>
>>> ---
>>> net/sched/cls_flower.c | 3 ++-
>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>> diff --git a/net/sched/cls_flower.c b/net/sched/cls_flower.c
>>> index 1844545bef37..a1c4ee2e0be2 100644
>>> --- a/net/sched/cls_flower.c
>>> +++ b/net/sched/cls_flower.c
>>> @@ -2339,7 +2339,8 @@ static int fl_change(struct net *net, struct sk_buff *in_skb,
>>> errout_mask:
>>> fl_mask_put(head, fnew->mask);
>>> errout_idr:
>>> - idr_remove(&head->handle_idr, fnew->handle);
>>> + if (!fold)
>>> + idr_remove(&head->handle_idr, fnew->handle);
>>> __fl_put(fnew);
>>> errout_tb:
>>> kfree(tb);
>>
>> Actually this seems to be fixing the same issue:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230425140604.169881-1-ivecera@redhat.com/
>
> Indeed it does, I've missed that patch. However, it seems there
> is an issue with Ivan's approach. Consider what would happen when
> fold!=NULL && in_ht==false and rhashtable_insert_fast() fails here:
>
>
> if (fold) {
> /* Fold filter was deleted concurrently. Retry lookup. */
> if (fold->deleted) {
> err = -EAGAIN;
> goto errout_hw;
> }
>
> fnew->handle = handle; // <-- fnew->handle is assigned
>
> if (!in_ht) {
> struct rhashtable_params params =
> fnew->mask->filter_ht_params;
>
> err = rhashtable_insert_fast(&fnew->mask->ht,
> &fnew->ht_node,
> params);
> if (err)
> goto errout_hw; /* <-- err is set, go to
> error handler here */
> in_ht = true;
> }
>
> refcount_inc(&fnew->refcnt);
> rhashtable_remove_fast(&fold->mask->ht,
> &fold->ht_node,
> fold->mask->filter_ht_params);
> /* !!! we never get to insert fnew into idr here, if ht insertion fails */
> idr_replace(&head->handle_idr, fnew, fnew->handle);
> list_replace_rcu(&fold->list, &fnew->list);
> fold->deleted = true;
>
> spin_unlock(&tp->lock);
>
> fl_mask_put(head, fold->mask);
> if (!tc_skip_hw(fold->flags))
> fl_hw_destroy_filter(tp, fold, rtnl_held, NULL);
> tcf_unbind_filter(tp, &fold->res);
> /* Caller holds reference to fold, so refcnt is always > 0
> * after this.
> */
> refcount_dec(&fold->refcnt);
> __fl_put(fold);
> }
>
> ...
>
> errout_ht:
> spin_lock(&tp->lock);
> errout_hw:
> fnew->deleted = true;
> spin_unlock(&tp->lock);
> if (!tc_skip_hw(fnew->flags))
> fl_hw_destroy_filter(tp, fnew, rtnl_held, NULL);
> if (in_ht)
> rhashtable_remove_fast(&fnew->mask->ht, &fnew->ht_node,
> fnew->mask->filter_ht_params);
> errout_mask:
> fl_mask_put(head, fnew->mask);
> errout_idr:
> /* !!! On next line we remove handle that we don't actually own */
> idr_remove(&head->handle_idr, fnew->handle);
> __fl_put(fnew);
> errout_tb:
> kfree(tb);
> errout_mask_alloc:
> tcf_queue_work(&mask->rwork, fl_uninit_mask_free_work);
> errout_fold:
> if (fold)
> __fl_put(fold);
> return err;
>
>
> Also, if I understood the idea behind Ivan's fix correctly, it relies on
> the fact that calling idr_remove() with handle==0 is a noop. I prefer my
> approach slightly better as it is more explicit IMO.
>
> Thoughts?
I agree with your analysis
Powered by blists - more mailing lists