netdev - Re: [PATCH 2/2] Rescan the hash2 list if the hash chains have got cross-linked.

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: <CANn89iKs7e71dCFnKr-3NM8N7BAfRUa0VrOLhYrATVR-DzgWqA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2023 16:48:29 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>
Cc: "willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com" <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>, 
	"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>, "dsahern@...nel.org" <dsahern@...nel.org>, 
	"kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>, "pabeni@...hat.com" <pabeni@...hat.com>, 
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Rescan the hash2 list if the hash chains have got cross-linked.

On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 4:39 PM David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com> wrote:
>
> From: Eric Dumazet
> > Sent: 26 July 2023 15:22
> ...
> > Can you describe what user space operation is done by your precious application,
> > triggering a rehash in the first place ?
>
> We've no idea what is causing the rehash.
> There are a lot of sockets that are receiving RTP audio.
> But they are only created, bound and then deleted.
>
> The 'best guess' is something to do with ipsec tunnels
> being created, deleted or rehashed.
>
> >
> > Maybe we can think of something less disruptive in the kernel.
> > (For instance, you could have a second socket, insert it in the new bucket,
> > then remove the old socket)
> >
> > > The problem is that a single 'port unreachable' can be treated
> > > as a fatal error by the receiving application.
> > > So you really don't want to be sending them.
> >
> > Well, if your application needs to run with old kernels, and or
> > transient netfilter changes (some firewall setups do not use
> > iptables-restore)
> > better be more resilient to transient ICMP messages anyway.
>
> This is being done for the specific pair of sockets that caused grief.
> For this setup they were on 127.0.0.1 but that isn't always true.
> But they would be expected to be on a local network.
>
> Reading between the lines of the comment in ipv4/icmp.c
> it is reasonable to assume that ICMP_PORT_UNREACH be treated
> as a fatal error (ie not a transient one).
> So really the Linux kernel ought to try quite hard to not
> generate them when the port exists.

Sure, then please add the synchronize_rcu() call, because it won't affect you.

You could add a probe to try to identify what is causing a rehash.

perf probe -a udp_lib_rehash
perf record -a -g -e probe:udp_lib_rehash sleep 60
...
perf script