From: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>
To: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com>
Cc: nixiaoming <nixiaoming@huawei.com>,
David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
waltje@uwalt.nl.mugnet.org, gw4pts@gw4pts.ampr.org,
Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@google.com>,
Tobias Klauser <tklauser@distanz.ch>,
Philip Pettersson <philip.pettersson@gmail.com>,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>,
Network Development <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
dede.wu@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/packet: fix race condition between fanout_add and __unregister_prot_hook
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2017 10:41:04 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAM_iQpWAeB+8bm9u+eHS3k_h5PSbnztXBvzTC=f0-tohdiSgzQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAF=yD-Jt5boxgQne4s1Fzy0y=Lq7RO4fjF6BfOCoh1bgaSECHQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 7:35 AM, Willem de Bruijn
<willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 10:07 AM, nixiaoming <nixiaoming@huawei.com> wrote:
>> From: l00219569 <lisimin@huawei.com>
>>
>> If fanout_add is preempted after running po-> fanout = match
>> and before running __fanout_link,
>> it will cause BUG_ON when __unregister_prot_hook call __fanout_unlink
>>
>> so, we need add mutex_lock(&fanout_mutex) to __unregister_prot_hook
>
> The packet socket code has no shortage of locks, so there are many
> ways to avoid the race condition between fanout_add and packet_set_ring.
>
> Another option would be to lock the socket when calling fanout_add:
>
> - return fanout_add(sk, val & 0xffff, val >> 16);
> + lock_sock(sk);
> + ret = fanout_add(sk, val & 0xffff, val >> 16);
> + release_sock(sk);
> + return ret;
>
I don't think this is an option, because __unregister_prot_hook()
can be called without lock_sock(), for example in packet_notifier().
> But, for consistency, and to be able to continue to make sense of the
> locking policy, we should use the most appropriate lock. This
> is po->bind_lock, as it ensures atomicity between testing whether
> a protocol hook is active through po->running and the actual existence
> of that hook on the protocol hook list.
Yeah, register_prot_hook() and unregister_prot_hook() already assume
bind_lock.
[...]
>> out:
>> mutex_unlock(&fanout_mutex);
>> + spin_unlock(&po->bind_lock);
>
> This function can call kzalloc with GFP_KERNEL, which may sleep. It is
> not correct to sleep while holding a spinlock. Which is why I take the lock
> later and test po->running again.
Right, no need to mention the mutex_unlock() before the spin_unlock()
is clearly wrong.
>
> I will clean up that patch and send it for review.
How about the following patch?
diff --git a/net/packet/af_packet.c b/net/packet/af_packet.c
index c26172995511..f5c696a548ed 100644
--- a/net/packet/af_packet.c
+++ b/net/packet/af_packet.c
@@ -1754,10 +1754,14 @@ static int fanout_add(struct sock *sk, u16 id,
u16 type_flags)
match->prot_hook.dev == po->prot_hook.dev) {
err = -ENOSPC;
if (refcount_read(&match->sk_ref) < PACKET_FANOUT_MAX) {
+ spin_lock(&po->bind_lock);
__dev_remove_pack(&po->prot_hook);
- po->fanout = match;
- refcount_set(&match->sk_ref,
refcount_read(&match->sk_ref) + 1);
- __fanout_link(sk, po);
+ if (po->running) {
+ refcount_set(&match->sk_ref,
refcount_read(&match->sk_ref) + 1);
+ po->fanout = match;
+ __fanout_link(sk, po);
+ }
+ spin_unlock(&po->bind_lock);
err = 0;
}
}
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-09-15 17:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-09-14 14:07 [PATCH] net/packet: fix race condition between fanout_add and __unregister_prot_hook nixiaoming
2017-09-14 14:35 ` Willem de Bruijn
2017-09-15 17:41 ` Cong Wang [this message]
2017-09-15 17:46 ` Willem de Bruijn
2017-09-15 18:09 ` Cong Wang
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2017-09-14 2:44 nixiaoming
2017-09-14 2:40 nixiaoming
2017-09-14 11:22 ` Willem de Bruijn
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CAM_iQpWAeB+8bm9u+eHS3k_h5PSbnztXBvzTC=f0-tohdiSgzQ@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com \
--cc=andreyknvl@google.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=dede.wu@huawei.com \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=glider@google.com \
--cc=gw4pts@gw4pts.ampr.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nixiaoming@huawei.com \
--cc=philip.pettersson@gmail.com \
--cc=tklauser@distanz.ch \
--cc=waltje@uwalt.nl.mugnet.org \
--cc=willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).