lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2024]   [Jan]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3] ipc/mqueue: fix potential sleeping issue in mqueue_flush_file
From


On 2024/1/19 21:09, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 11:27 AM Zhengchao Shao
> <shaozhengchao@huawei.com> wrote:
>>
>> I analyze the potential sleeping issue of the following processes:
>> Thread A Thread B
>> ... netlink_create //ref = 1
>> do_mq_notify ...
>> sock = netlink_getsockbyfilp ... //ref = 2
>> info->notify_sock = sock; ...
>> ... netlink_sendmsg
>> ... skb = netlink_alloc_large_skb //skb->head is vmalloced
>> ... netlink_unicast
>> ... sk = netlink_getsockbyportid //ref = 3
>> ... netlink_sendskb
>> ... __netlink_sendskb
>> ... skb_queue_tail //put skb to sk_receive_queue
>> ... sock_put //ref = 2
>> ... ...
>> ... netlink_release
>> ... deferred_put_nlk_sk //ref = 1
>> mqueue_flush_file
>> spin_lock
>> remove_notification
>> netlink_sendskb
>> sock_put //ref = 0
>> sk_free
>> ...
>> __sk_destruct
>> netlink_sock_destruct
>> skb_queue_purge //get skb from sk_receive_queue
>> ...
>> __skb_queue_purge_reason
>> kfree_skb_reason
>> __kfree_skb
>> ...
>> skb_release_all
>> skb_release_head_state
>> netlink_skb_destructor
>> vfree(skb->head) //sleeping while holding spinlock
>>
>> In netlink_sendmsg, if the memory pointed to by skb->head is allocated by
>> vmalloc, and is put to sk_receive_queue queue, also the skb is not freed.
>> When the mqueue executes flush, the sleeping bug will occur. Put sock
>> after releasing the spinlock.
>>
>> Fixes: 1da177e4c3f4 ("Linux-2.6.12-rc2")
>
Hi Eric:
> I think netlink started to use vmalloc() from commit c05cdb1b864f
> ("netlink: allow large data transfers from user-space")
>
Thank you for your review. Yes, you are right. Sorry for my mistake.
>> Signed-off-by: Zhengchao Shao <shaozhengchao@huawei.com>
>> ---
>> v3: Put sock after releasing the spinlock.
>> v2: CCed some networking maintainer & netdev list
>> ---
>> ipc/mqueue.c | 15 +++++++++++++--
>> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/ipc/mqueue.c b/ipc/mqueue.c
>> index 5eea4dc0509e..4832343b7049 100644
>> --- a/ipc/mqueue.c
>> +++ b/ipc/mqueue.c
>> @@ -664,12 +664,23 @@ static ssize_t mqueue_read_file(struct file *filp, char __user *u_data,
>> static int mqueue_flush_file(struct file *filp, fl_owner_t id)
>> {
>> struct mqueue_inode_info *info = MQUEUE_I(file_inode(filp));
>> + struct sock *sk = NULL;
>>
>> spin_lock(&info->lock);
>> - if (task_tgid(current) == info->notify_owner)
>> - remove_notification(info);
>> + if (task_tgid(current) == info->notify_owner) {
>> + if (info->notify_owner != NULL &&
>> + info->notify.sigev_notify == SIGEV_THREAD) {
>> + sk = info->notify_sock;
>> + sock_hold(sk);
>> + }
>>
>> + remove_notification(info);
>> + }
>> spin_unlock(&info->lock);
>> +
>> + if (sk)
>> + sock_put(sk);
>> +
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>
>
> Note that we could instead call vfree_atomic() from netlink_skb_destructor()
>
> diff --git a/net/netlink/af_netlink.c b/net/netlink/af_netlink.c
> index 4ed8ffd58ff375f3fa9f262e6f3b4d1a1aaf2731..9c962347cf859f16fc76e4d8a2fd22cdb3d142d6
> 100644
> --- a/net/netlink/af_netlink.c
> +++ b/net/netlink/af_netlink.c
> @@ -374,7 +374,7 @@ static void netlink_skb_destructor(struct sk_buff *skb)
> if (is_vmalloc_addr(skb->head)) {
> if (!skb->cloned ||
> !atomic_dec_return(&(skb_shinfo(skb)->dataref)))
> - vfree(skb->head);
> + vfree_atomic(skb->head);
>
> skb->head = NULL;
> }
>
OK, I will send v4 after verification.
> These big skbs are quite rare IMO, and we also could attempt
> high-order allocations
> in netlink_alloc_large_skb(), using kvmalloc() instead of vmalloc()
> (next week when net-next opens)
>
It looks good to me. I would like to do it if you want...
Thank you.

Zhengchao Shao

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2024-01-20 07:56    [W:0.045 / U:0.068 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site