netdev - Re: [PATCH net] net: drop secpath extension before skb deferral free

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: <ZlQ455Vg0HfGbkzT@gauss3.secunet.de>
Date: Mon, 27 May 2024 09:40:23 +0200
From: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
To: Jianbo Liu <jianbol@...dia.com>
CC: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>, "edumazet@...gle.com"
	<edumazet@...gle.com>, "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"fw@...len.de" <fw@...len.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: drop secpath extension before skb deferral free

On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 03:26:22PM +0000, Jianbo Liu wrote:
> On Thu, 2024-05-23 at 12:00 +0200, Steffen Klassert wrote:
> > 
> > Hm, interesting.
> > 
> > Can you check if xfrm_dev_state_free() is triggered in that codepath
> > and if it actually removes the device from the states?
> > 
> 
> xfrm_dev_state_free is not triggered. I think it's because I did "ip x
> s delall" before unregister netdev.

Yes, likely. So we can't defer the device removal to the state free
functions, we always need to do that on state delete.

> Besides, as it's possible to sleep in dev's xdo_dev_state_free, there
> is a "scheduling while atomic" issue to call xfrm_dev_state_free in
> spin_lock.

Thanks for the hint!