Message-ID: <Z8GzHATDUapN3EoD@fedora>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2025 12:59:08 +0000
From: Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com>
To: Cosmin Ratiu <cratiu@...dia.com>
Cc: "razor@...ckwall.org" <razor@...ckwall.org>,
	"andrew+netdev@...n.ch" <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
	"jarod@...hat.com" <jarod@...hat.com>,
	"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...dia.com>,
	"linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
	"shuah@...nel.org" <shuah@...nel.org>,
	"steffen.klassert@...unet.com" <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>,
	"jv@...sburgh.net" <jv@...sburgh.net>,
	"kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>,
	"horms@...nel.org" <horms@...nel.org>,
	"edumazet@...gle.com" <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jianbo Liu <jianbol@...dia.com>,
	"pabeni@...hat.com" <pabeni@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 net 1/3] bonding: move IPsec deletion to
 bond_ipsec_free_sa

Hi Cosmin,
On Fri, Feb 28, 2025 at 10:31:58AM +0000, Cosmin Ratiu wrote:
> On Fri, 2025-02-28 at 02:20 +0000, Hangbin Liu wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 03:31:01PM +0200, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
> > > > > One more thing - note I'm not an xfrm expert by far but it
> > > > > seems to me here you have
> > > > > to also call  xdo_dev_state_free() with the old active slave
> > > > > dev otherwise that will
> > > > > never get called with the original real_dev after the switch to
> > > > > a new
> > > > > active slave (or more accurately it might if the GC runs
> > > > > between the switching
> > > > > but it is a race), care must be taken wrt sequence of events
> > > > > because the XFRM
> > > > 
> > > > Can we just call xs->xso.real_dev->xfrmdev_ops-
> > > > >xdo_dev_state_free(xs)
> > > > no matter xs->xso.real_dev == real_dev or not? I'm afraid calling
> > > > xdo_dev_state_free() every where may make us lot more easily.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > You'd have to check all drivers that implement the callback to
> > > answer that and even then
> > > I'd stick to the canonical way of how it's done in xfrm and make
> > > the bond just passthrough.
> > > Any other games become dangerous and new code will have to be
> > > carefully reviewed every
> > > time, calling another device's free_sa when it wasn't added before
> > > doesn't sound good.
> > > 
> > > > > GC may be running in parallel which probably means that in
> > > > > bond_ipsec_free_sa()
> > > > > you'll have to take the mutex before calling
> > > > > xdo_dev_state_free() and check
> > > > > if the entry is still linked in the bond's ipsec list before
> > > > > calling the free_sa
> > > > > callback, if it isn't then del_sa_all got to it before the GC
> > > > > and there's nothing
> > > > > to do if it also called the dev's free_sa callback. The check
> > > > > for real_dev doesn't
> > > > > seem enough to protect against this race.
> > > > 
> > > > I agree that we need to take the mutex before calling
> > > > xdo_dev_state_free()
> > > > in bond_ipsec_free_sa(). Do you think if this is enough? I'm a
> > > > bit lot here.
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks
> > > > Hangbin
> > > 
> > > Well, the race is between the xfrm GC and del_sa_all, in bond's
> > > free_sa if you
> > > walk the list under the mutex before calling real_dev's free
> > > callback and
> > > don't find the current element that's being freed in free_sa then
> > > it was
> > > cleaned up by del_sa_all, otherwise del_sa_all is waiting to walk
> > > that
> > > list and clean the entries. I think it should be fine as long as
> > > free_sa
> > > was called once with the proper device.
> > 
> > OK, so the free will be called either in del_sa_all() or free_sa().
> > Something like this?
> > 
> [...]
> 
> Unfortunately, after applying these changes and reasoning about them
> for a bit, I don't think this will work. There are still races left.
> For example:
> 1. An xs is marked DEAD (in __xfrm_state_delete, with x->lock held) and
> before .xdo_dev_state_delete() is called on it, bond_ipsec_del_sa_all
> is called in parallel, doesn't call delete on xs (because it's dead),
> then calls free (incorrect without delete first), then removes the list
> entry. Later, xdo_dev_state_delete( == bond_ipsec_del_sa) is called,
> and calls delete (incorrect, out of order with free). Finally,
> bond_ipsec_free_sa is called, which fortunately doesn't do anything
> silly in the new proposed form because xs is no longer in the list.
> 
> 2. A more sinister form of the above race can happen when 
> bond_ipsec_del_sa_all() calls delete on real_dev, then in parallel and
> immediately after __xfrm_state_delete marks xs as DEAD and calls
> bond_ipsec_del_sa() which happily calls delete on real_dev again.
> 
> In order to fix these races (and others like it), I think
> bond_ipsec_del_sa_all and bond_ipsec_add_sa_all *need* to acquire x-
> >lock for each xs being processed. This would prevent xfrm from
> concurrently initiating add/delete operations on the managed states.
> 

Thanks a lot for the careful checking. I will add the x->lock
in del/add_sa_all.

Regards
Hangbin

Powered by blists - more mailing lists