netdev - Re: [PATCH 4/4] net/tls: implement ->read

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: <35f5f82c-0a25-37aa-e017-99e6739fa307@grimberg.me>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2023 11:39:43 +0300
From: Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>
To: Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>,
 linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
 Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 Boris Pismenny <boris.pismenny@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] net/tls: implement ->read_sock()


>> On Tue, 20 Jun 2023 16:21:22 +0300 Sagi Grimberg wrote:
>>>> +    err = tls_rx_reader_lock(sk, ctx, true);
>>>> +    if (err < 0)
>>>> +        return err;
>>>
>>> Unlike recvmsg or splice_read, the caller of read_sock is assumed to
>>> have the socket locked, and tls_rx_reader_lock also calls lock_sock,
>>> how is this not a deadlock?
>>
>> Yeah :|
>>
>>> I'm not exactly clear why the lock is needed here or what is the subtle
>>> distinction between tls_rx_reader_lock and what lock_sock provides.
>>
>> It's a bit of a workaround for the consistency of the data stream.
>> There's bunch of state in the TLS ULP and waiting for mem or data
>> releases and re-takes the socket lock. So to stop the flow annoying
>> corner case races I slapped a lock around all of the reader.
>>
>> IMHO depending on the socket lock for anything non-trivial and outside
>> of the socket itself is a bad idea in general.
>>
>> The immediate need at the time was that if you did a read() and someone
>> else did a peek() at the same time from a stream of A B C D you may read
>> A D B C.
> 
> Leaving me ever so confused.
> 
> read_sock() is a generic interface; we cannot require a protocol 
> specific lock before calling it.
> 
> What to do now?
> Drop the tls_rx_read_lock from read_sock() again?

Probably just need to synchronize the readers by splitting that from
tls_rx_reader_lock:
--
diff --git a/net/tls/tls_sw.c b/net/tls/tls_sw.c
index 53f944e6d8ef..53404c3fdcc6 100644
--- a/net/tls/tls_sw.c
+++ b/net/tls/tls_sw.c
@@ -1845,13 +1845,10 @@ tls_read_flush_backlog(struct sock *sk, struct 
tls_prot_info *prot,
         return sk_flush_backlog(sk);
  }

-static int tls_rx_reader_lock(struct sock *sk, struct tls_sw_context_rx 
*ctx,
-                             bool nonblock)
+static int tls_rx_reader_acquire(struct sock *sk, struct 
tls_sw_context_rx *ctx,
+                            bool nonblock)
  {
         long timeo;
-       int err;
-
-       lock_sock(sk);

         timeo = sock_rcvtimeo(sk, nonblock);

@@ -1865,26 +1862,30 @@ static int tls_rx_reader_lock(struct sock *sk, 
struct tls_sw_context_rx *ctx,
                               !READ_ONCE(ctx->reader_present), &wait);
                 remove_wait_queue(&ctx->wq, &wait);

-               if (timeo <= 0) {
-                       err = -EAGAIN;
-                       goto err_unlock;
-               }
-               if (signal_pending(current)) {
-                       err = sock_intr_errno(timeo);
-                       goto err_unlock;
-               }
+               if (timeo <= 0)
+                       return -EAGAIN;
+               if (signal_pending(current))
+                       return sock_intr_errno(timeo);
         }

         WRITE_ONCE(ctx->reader_present, 1);

         return 0;
+}

-err_unlock:
-       release_sock(sk);
+static int tls_rx_reader_lock(struct sock *sk, struct tls_sw_context_rx 
*ctx,
+                             bool nonblock)
+{
+       int err;
+
+       lock_sock(sk);
+       err = tls_rx_reader_acquire(sk, ctx, nonblock);
+       if (err)
+               release_sock(sk);
         return err;
  }

-static void tls_rx_reader_unlock(struct sock *sk, struct 
tls_sw_context_rx *ctx)
+static void tls_rx_reader_release(struct sock *sk, struct 
tls_sw_context_rx *ctx)
  {
         if (unlikely(ctx->reader_contended)) {
                 if (wq_has_sleeper(&ctx->wq))
@@ -1896,6 +1897,11 @@ static void tls_rx_reader_unlock(struct sock *sk, 
struct tls_sw_context_rx *ctx)
         }

         WRITE_ONCE(ctx->reader_present, 0);
+}
+
+static void tls_rx_reader_unlock(struct sock *sk, struct 
tls_sw_context_rx *ctx)
+{
+       tls_rx_reader_release(sk, ctx);
         release_sock(sk);
  }
--

Then read_sock can just acquire/release.