Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] RDMA/core: Fix race when resolving IP address | From | Dag Moxnes <> | Date | Mon, 24 Jun 2019 15:40:24 +0200 |
| |
Hi Jason,
Thanks for the review.
On 6/21/19 4:56 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 04:09:16PM +0200, Dag Moxnes wrote: >> Use neighbour lock when copying MAC address from neighbour data struct >> in dst_fetch_ha. >> >> When not using the lock, it is possible for the function to race with >> neigh_update, causing it to copy an invalid MAC address. >> >> It is possible to provoke this error by calling rdma_resolve_addr in a >> tight loop, while deleting the corresponding ARP entry in another tight >> loop. >> >> Signed-off-by: Dag Moxnes <dag.moxnes@oracle.com> >> Change-Id: I3c5f982b304457f0a83ea7def2fac70315ed38b4 >> drivers/infiniband/core/addr.c | 6 +++++- >> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/core/addr.c b/drivers/infiniband/core/addr.c >> index 2f7d141598..e4945fd1bb 100644 >> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/core/addr.c >> @@ -333,12 +333,16 @@ static int dst_fetch_ha(const struct dst_entry *dst, >> if (!n) >> return -ENODATA; >> >> + read_lock_bh(&n->lock) Miising semicolon at end of statement. Sorry about that. >> if (!(n->nud_state & NUD_VALID)) { >> - neigh_event_send(n, NULL); >> ret = -ENODATA; >> } else { >> memcpy(dev_addr->dst_dev_addr, n->ha, MAX_ADDR_LEN); >> } >> + read_unlock_bh(&n->lock); >> + >> + if (ret) >> + neigh_event_send(n, NULL); >> >> neigh_release(n); > Can we write this with less spaghetti please, maybe: > > static int dst_fetch_ha(const struct dst_entry *dst, > struct rdma_dev_addr *dev_addr, > const void *daddr) > { > struct neighbour *n; > int ret = 0; > > n = dst_neigh_lookup(dst, daddr); > if (!n) > return -ENODATA; > > read_lock_bh(&n->lock); > if (!(n->nud_state & NUD_VALID)) { > read_unlock_bh(&n->lock); > goto out_send; > } > memcpy(dev_addr->dst_dev_addr, n->ha, MAX_ADDR_LEN); > read_unlock_bh(&n->lock); > > goto out_release; > > out_send: > neigh_event_send(n, NULL); > ret = -ENODATA; > out_release: > neigh_release(n); > > return ret; > }
Personally I find it more readable when the unlock is done in one place,
but sure, I can rewrite it the way you suggest if the reviewers agree that
that way is preferable.
Regards,
-Dag
> Also, Parav should look at it. > > Thanks, > Jason
| |