lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Mar]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Re: [PATCH net V4 1/2] ax25: Fix refcount leaks caused by ax25_cb_del()
Hello,

On Tue, 15 Mar 2022 13:26:57 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> I'm happy that this is simpler. I'm not super happy about the
> if (sk->sk_wq) check. That seems like a fragile side-effect condition
> instead of something deliberate. But I don't know networking so maybe
> this is something which we can rely on.

The variable sk->sk_wq is the address of waiting queue of sock, it is initialized to the
address of sock->wq through the following path:
sock_create->__sock_create->ax25_create()->sock_init_data()->RCU_INIT_POINTER(sk->sk_wq, &sock->wq).
Because we have used sock_alloc() to allocate the socket in __sock_create(), sock or the address of
sock->wq is not null.
What`s more, sk->sk_wq is set to null only in sock_orphan().

Another solution:
We could also use sk->sk_socket to check. We set sk->sk_socket to sock in the following path:
sock_create()->__sock_create()->ax25_create()->sock_init_data()->sk_set_socket(sk, sock).
Because we have used sock_alloc() to allocate the socket in __sock_create(), sock or sk->sk_socket
is not null.
What`s more, sk->sk_socket is set to null only in sock_orphan().

I will change the if (sk->sk_wq) check to if(sk->sk_socket) check, because I think it is
easier to understand.

> When you sent the earlier patch then I asked if the devices in
> ax25_kill_by_device() were always bound and if we could just use a local
> variable instead of something tied to the ax25_dev struct. I still
> wonder about that. In other words, could we just do this?
>
> diff --git a/net/ax25/af_ax25.c b/net/ax25/af_ax25.c
> index 6bd097180772..4af9d9a939c6 100644
> --- a/net/ax25/af_ax25.c
> +++ b/net/ax25/af_ax25.c
> @@ -78,6 +78,7 @@ static void ax25_kill_by_device(struct net_device *dev)
> ax25_dev *ax25_dev;
> ax25_cb *s;
> struct sock *sk;
> + bool found = false;
>
> if ((ax25_dev = ax25_dev_ax25dev(dev)) == NULL)
> return;
> @@ -86,6 +87,7 @@ static void ax25_kill_by_device(struct net_device *dev)
> again:
> ax25_for_each(s, &ax25_list) {
> if (s->ax25_dev == ax25_dev) {
> + found = true;
> sk = s->sk;
> if (!sk) {
> spin_unlock_bh(&ax25_list_lock);
> @@ -115,6 +117,11 @@ static void ax25_kill_by_device(struct net_device *dev)
> }
> }
> spin_unlock_bh(&ax25_list_lock);
> +
> + if (!found) {
> + dev_put_track(ax25_dev->dev, &ax25_dev->dev_tracker);
> + ax25_dev_put(ax25_dev);
> + }
> }

If we just use ax25_dev_device_up() to bring device up without using ax25_bind(),
the "found" flag could be false when we enter ax25_kill_by_device() and the refcounts
underflow will happen. So we should use two additional variables.

If we use additional variables to fix the bug, I think there is a problem.
In the real world, the device could be detached only once. If the following
race condition happens, we could not deallocate ax25_dev and net_device anymore,
because we could not call ax25_kill_by_device() again.

(Thread 1) | (Thread 2)
ax25_bind() |
| ax25_kill_by_device() //decrease refcounts
(Thread 3) |
ax25_bind() |
... | ...
ax25_dev_hold() //(1) |
dev_hold_track() //(2) |
| ax25_dev_device_down()
In patch "[PATCH net V4 1/2] ax25: Fix refcount leaks caused by ax25_cb_del()",
even the device has been detached, we could also decrease the refcouns by using
ax25_release(), which could ensure ax25_dev and net_device could be deallocated.
So I think "[PATCH net V4 1/2]" is better.

Best wishes,
Duoming Zhou
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-03-15 15:12    [W:0.092 / U:0.520 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site