| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <1cbbc046-3b41-4518-95f3-9a4d2315ff92@davidwei.uk>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2023 11:13:45 -0800
From: David Wei <dw@...idwei.uk>
To: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Sabrina Dubroca <sd@...asysnail.net>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 1/4] netdevsim: allow two netdevsim ports to
be connected
On 2023-12-15 03:11, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 10:24:40PM CET, dw@...idwei.uk wrote:
>> Add a debugfs file in
>> /sys/kernel/debug/netdevsim/netdevsimN/ports/A/peer
>>
>> Writing "M B" to this file will link port A of netdevsim N with port B of
>> netdevsim M.
>>
>> Reading this file will return the linked netdevsim id and port, if any.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: David Wei <dw@...idwei.uk>
>> ---
>> drivers/net/netdevsim/bus.c | 17 ++++++
>> drivers/net/netdevsim/dev.c | 88 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> drivers/net/netdevsim/netdev.c | 6 +++
>> drivers/net/netdevsim/netdevsim.h | 3 ++
>> 4 files changed, 114 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/netdevsim/bus.c b/drivers/net/netdevsim/bus.c
>> index bcbc1e19edde..1ef95661a3f5 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/netdevsim/bus.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/netdevsim/bus.c
>> @@ -323,6 +323,23 @@ static struct device_driver nsim_driver = {
>> .owner = THIS_MODULE,
>> };
>>
>> +struct nsim_bus_dev *nsim_bus_dev_get(unsigned int id)
>
> This sounds definitelly incorrect. You should not need to touch bus.c
> code. It arranges the bus and devices on it. The fact that a device is
> probed or not is parallel to this.
>
> I think you need to maintain a separate list/xarray of netdevsim devices
> probed by nsim_drv_probe()
There is a 1:1 relationship between bus devices (nsim_bus_dev) and nsim devices
(nsim_dev). Adding a separate list for nsim devices seemed redundant to me when
there is already a list for bus devices.
>
>
>> +{
>> + struct nsim_bus_dev *nsim_bus_dev;
>> +
>> + mutex_lock(&nsim_bus_dev_list_lock);
>> + list_for_each_entry(nsim_bus_dev, &nsim_bus_dev_list, list) {
>> + if (nsim_bus_dev->dev.id == id) {
>> + get_device(&nsim_bus_dev->dev);
>> + mutex_unlock(&nsim_bus_dev_list_lock);
>> + return nsim_bus_dev;
>> + }
>> + }
>> + mutex_unlock(&nsim_bus_dev_list_lock);
>> +
>> + return NULL;
>> +}
>> +
>> int nsim_bus_init(void)
>> {
>> int err;
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/netdevsim/dev.c b/drivers/net/netdevsim/dev.c
>> index b4d3b9cde8bd..034145ba1861 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/netdevsim/dev.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/netdevsim/dev.c
>> @@ -388,6 +388,91 @@ static const struct file_operations nsim_dev_rate_parent_fops = {
>> .owner = THIS_MODULE,
>> };
>>
>> +static ssize_t nsim_dev_peer_read(struct file *file, char __user *data,
>> + size_t count, loff_t *ppos)
>> +{
>> + struct nsim_dev_port *nsim_dev_port;
>> + struct netdevsim *peer;
>> + unsigned int id, port;
>> + char buf[23];
>> + ssize_t len;
>> +
>> + nsim_dev_port = file->private_data;
>> + rcu_read_lock();
>> + peer = rcu_dereference(nsim_dev_port->ns->peer);
>> + if (!peer) {
>> + rcu_read_unlock();
>> + return 0;
>> + }
>> +
>> + id = peer->nsim_bus_dev->dev.id;
>> + port = peer->nsim_dev_port->port_index;
>> + len = scnprintf(buf, sizeof(buf), "%u %u\n", id, port);
>> +
>> + rcu_read_unlock();
>> + return simple_read_from_buffer(data, count, ppos, buf, len);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static ssize_t nsim_dev_peer_write(struct file *file,
>> + const char __user *data,
>> + size_t count, loff_t *ppos)
>> +{
>> + struct nsim_dev_port *nsim_dev_port, *peer_dev_port;
>> + struct nsim_bus_dev *peer_bus_dev;
>> + struct nsim_dev *peer_dev;
>> + unsigned int id, port;
>> + char buf[22];
>> + ssize_t ret;
>> +
>> + if (count >= sizeof(buf))
>> + return -ENOSPC;
>> +
>> + ret = copy_from_user(buf, data, count);
>> + if (ret)
>> + return -EFAULT;
>> + buf[count] = '\0';
>> +
>> + ret = sscanf(buf, "%u %u", &id, &port);
>> + if (ret != 2) {
>> + pr_err("Format for adding a peer is \"id port\" (uint uint)");
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> + }
>> +
>> + /* invalid netdevsim id */
>> + peer_bus_dev = nsim_bus_dev_get(id);
>> + if (!peer_bus_dev)
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> + ret = -EINVAL;
>> + /* cannot link to self */
>> + nsim_dev_port = file->private_data;
>> + if (nsim_dev_port->ns->nsim_bus_dev == peer_bus_dev &&
>> + nsim_dev_port->port_index == port)
>> + goto out;
>> +
>> + peer_dev = dev_get_drvdata(&peer_bus_dev->dev);
>
> Again, no bus touching should be needed. (btw, this could be null is dev
> is not probed)
That's fair, I can do a null check.
>
>
>> + list_for_each_entry(peer_dev_port, &peer_dev->port_list, list) {
>> + if (peer_dev_port->port_index != port)
>> + continue;
>> + rcu_assign_pointer(nsim_dev_port->ns->peer, peer_dev_port->ns);
>> + rcu_assign_pointer(peer_dev_port->ns->peer, nsim_dev_port->ns);
>
> What is stopping another cpu from setting different peer for the same
> port here, making a mess?
Looking into RCU a bit more, you're right that it does not protect from
multiple writers. Would adding a lock (spinlock?) to nsim_dev and taking that
be sufficient here?
Or what if I took rtnl_lock()?
>
>
>> + ret = count;
>> + goto out;
>> + }
>> +
>> +out:
>> + put_device(&peer_bus_dev->dev);
>> + return ret;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static const struct file_operations nsim_dev_peer_fops = {
>> + .open = simple_open,
>> + .read = nsim_dev_peer_read,
>> + .write = nsim_dev_peer_write,
>> + .llseek = generic_file_llseek,
>> + .owner = THIS_MODULE,
>> +};
>> +
>> static int nsim_dev_port_debugfs_init(struct nsim_dev *nsim_dev,
>> struct nsim_dev_port *nsim_dev_port)
>> {
>> @@ -418,6 +503,9 @@ static int nsim_dev_port_debugfs_init(struct nsim_dev *nsim_dev,
>> }
>> debugfs_create_symlink("dev", nsim_dev_port->ddir, dev_link_name);
>>
>> + debugfs_create_file("peer", 0600, nsim_dev_port->ddir,
>> + nsim_dev_port, &nsim_dev_peer_fops);
>> +
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/netdevsim/netdev.c b/drivers/net/netdevsim/netdev.c
>> index aecaf5f44374..e290c54b0e70 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/netdevsim/netdev.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/netdevsim/netdev.c
>> @@ -388,6 +388,7 @@ nsim_create(struct nsim_dev *nsim_dev, struct nsim_dev_port *nsim_dev_port)
>> ns->nsim_dev = nsim_dev;
>> ns->nsim_dev_port = nsim_dev_port;
>> ns->nsim_bus_dev = nsim_dev->nsim_bus_dev;
>> + RCU_INIT_POINTER(ns->peer, NULL);
>> SET_NETDEV_DEV(dev, &ns->nsim_bus_dev->dev);
>> SET_NETDEV_DEVLINK_PORT(dev, &nsim_dev_port->devlink_port);
>> nsim_ethtool_init(ns);
>> @@ -407,9 +408,14 @@ nsim_create(struct nsim_dev *nsim_dev, struct nsim_dev_port *nsim_dev_port)
>> void nsim_destroy(struct netdevsim *ns)
>> {
>> struct net_device *dev = ns->netdev;
>> + struct netdevsim *peer;
>>
>> rtnl_lock();
>> + peer = rtnl_dereference(ns->peer);
>> + RCU_INIT_POINTER(ns->peer, NULL);
>> unregister_netdevice(dev);
>> + if (peer)
>> + RCU_INIT_POINTER(peer->peer, NULL);
>
> What is stopping the another CPU from setting this back to this "ns"?
> Or what is stopping another netdevsim port from setting this ns while
> going away?
>
> Do you rely on RTNL_LOCK in any way (other then synchronize_net() in
> unlock())? If yes, looks wrong.
>
> This ns->peer update locking looks very broken to me :/
As above, would a spinlock on nsim_dev or taking rtnl_lock() in
nsim_dev_peer_write() resolve this?
>
>
>
>
>> if (nsim_dev_port_is_pf(ns->nsim_dev_port)) {
>> nsim_macsec_teardown(ns);
>> nsim_ipsec_teardown(ns);
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/netdevsim/netdevsim.h b/drivers/net/netdevsim/netdevsim.h
>> index 028c825b86db..61ac3a80cf9a 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/netdevsim/netdevsim.h
>> +++ b/drivers/net/netdevsim/netdevsim.h
>> @@ -125,6 +125,7 @@ struct netdevsim {
>> } udp_ports;
>>
>> struct nsim_ethtool ethtool;
>> + struct netdevsim __rcu *peer;
>> };
>>
>> struct netdevsim *
>> @@ -415,5 +416,7 @@ struct nsim_bus_dev {
>> bool init;
>> };
>>
>> +struct nsim_bus_dev *nsim_bus_dev_get(unsigned int id);
>> +
>> int nsim_bus_init(void);
>> void nsim_bus_exit(void);
>> --
>> 2.39.3
>>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists