From: Jakub Sitnicki <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Cc: email@example.com, "David S. Miller" <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Eric Dumazet <email@example.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Paolo Abeni <email@example.com>,
Tom Parkin <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] l2tp: Don't sleep and disable BH under writer-side sk_callback_lock
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2022 11:46:58 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <email@example.com> (raw)
On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 06:48 PM +09, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> On 2022/11/22 6:55, Jakub Sitnicki wrote:
>> First, let me say, that I get the impression that setup_udp_tunnel_sock
>> was not really meant to be used on pre-existing sockets created by
>> user-space. Even though l2tp and gtp seem to be doing that.
>> That is because, I don't see how it could be used properly. Given that
>> we need to check-and-set sk_user_data under sk_callback_lock, which
>> setup_udp_tunnel_sock doesn't grab itself. At the same time it might
>> sleep. There is no way to apply it without resorting to tricks, like we
>> did here.
>> So - yeah - there may be other problems. But if there are, they are not
>> related to the faulty commit b68777d54fac ("l2tp: Serialize access to
>> sk_user_data with sk_callback_lock"), which we're trying to fix. There
>> was no locking present in l2tp_tunnel_register before that point.
> https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=94cc2a66fc228b23f360 is the one
> where changing lockdep class is concurrently done on pre-existing sockets.
> I think we need to always create a new socket inside l2tp_tunnel_register(),
> rather than trying to serialize setting of sk_user_data under sk_callback_lock.
While that would be easier to handle, I don't see how it can be done in
a backward-compatible way. User-space is allowed to pass a socket to
l2tp today .
>> However, that is also not related to the race to check-and-set
>> sk_user_data, which commit b68777d54fac is trying to fix.
> Therefore, I feel that reverting commit b68777d54fac "l2tp: Serialize access
> to sk_user_data with sk_callback_lock" might be the better choice.
I'm okay with that. Providing we can come up with have an alternative
fix to the race between l2tp and other sk_user_data users.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-11-22 10:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-11-19 13:03 [PATCH net] l2tp: Don't sleep and disable BH under writer-side sk_callback_lock Jakub Sitnicki
2022-11-19 13:52 ` Tetsuo Handa
2022-11-19 14:27 ` Tetsuo Handa
2022-11-21 9:00 ` Jakub Sitnicki
2022-11-21 10:03 ` Tetsuo Handa
2022-11-21 21:55 ` Jakub Sitnicki
2022-11-22 9:48 ` Tetsuo Handa
2022-11-22 10:46 ` Jakub Sitnicki [this message]
2022-11-22 11:14 ` Tetsuo Handa
2022-11-22 14:10 ` Guillaume Nault
2022-11-22 14:28 ` Tetsuo Handa
2022-11-23 15:24 ` Guillaume Nault
2022-11-24 10:07 ` Tom Parkin
2022-11-24 10:27 ` Guillaume Nault
2022-11-21 9:00 ` Jakub Sitnicki
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:
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
* 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).