lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Sep]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] net/packet: fix race condition between fanout_add and __unregister_prot_hook
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;
}
}
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-09-15 19:42    [W:0.053 / U:0.252 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site