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]
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2023 17:52:45 +0100
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>
Cc: Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>, linux-can@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Questionable RCU/BH usage in cgw_create_job().

On 2023-10-31 17:14:01 [+0100], Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
> Hi Sebastian,
Hi Oliver,

> The content of gwj->mod can be overwritten with new modification rules at
> runtime. But this update (with memcpy) has to take place when there is no
> incoming network traffic.

This is my assumption. But "no incoming network traffic" is not ensured,
right?

> > If not, my suggestion would be replacing the bh-off, memcpy part with:
> > |		old_mod = rcu_replace_pointer(gwj->mod, new_mod, true);
> > |		kfree_rcu_mightsleep(old_mod);
> > 
> > and doing the needed pointer replacement with for struct cgw_job::mod
> > and RCU annotation.
> 
> Replacing a pointer does not copy any data to the cf_mod structure, right?

Yes. The cf_mod data structure is embedded into cgw_job. So it would
have to become a pointer. Then cgw_create_job() would create a new
cf_mod via cgw_parse_attr() but it would be a new allocated structure
instead on stack like it is now. And then in the existing case you would
do the swap. Otherwise (non-existing, brand new) it becomes part of the
new created cgw_job.

The point is to replace/ update cf_mod at runtime while following RCU
rules so always either new or the old object is observed. Never an
intermediate step.

> Best regards,
> Oliver

Sebastian

Powered by blists - more mailing lists