Re: [PATCH] sctp: fix ASCONF list handling

[Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <mleitner@redhat.com>]

On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 10:27:32AM -0300, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 08:17:27AM -0300, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
> > On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 06:15:11AM -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 09:52:17PM -0300, mleitner@redhat.com wrote:
> > > > From: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@gmail.com>
> > > > 
> > > > ->auto_asconf_splist is per namespace and mangled by functions like
> > > > sctp_setsockopt_auto_asconf() which doesn't guarantee any serialization.
> > > > 
> > > > Also, the call to inet_sk_copy_descendant() was backuping
> > > > ->auto_asconf_list through the copy but was not honoring
> > > > ->do_auto_asconf, which could lead to list corruption if it was
> > > > different between both sockets.
> > > > 
> > > > This commit thus fixes the list handling by adding a spinlock to protect
> > > > against multiple writers and converts the list to be protected by RCU
> > > > too, so that we don't have a lock inverstion issue at
> > > > sctp_addr_wq_timeout_handler().
> > > > 
> > > > And as this list now uses RCU, we cannot do such backup and restore
> > > > while copying descendant data anymore as readers may be traversing the
> > > > list meanwhile. We fix this by simply ignoring/not copying those fields,
> > > > placed at the end of struct sctp_sock, so we can just ignore it together
> > > > with struct ipv6_pinfo data. For that we create sctp_copy_descendant()
> > > > so we don't clutter inet_sk_copy_descendant() with SCTP info.
> > > > 
> > > > Issue was found with a test application that kept flipping sysctl
> > > > default_auto_asconf on and off.
> > > > 
> > > > Fixes: 9f7d653b67ae ("sctp: Add Auto-ASCONF support (core).")
> > > > Signed-off-by: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@gmail.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  include/net/netns/sctp.h   |  6 +++++-
> > > >  include/net/sctp/structs.h |  2 ++
> > > >  net/sctp/protocol.c        |  6 +++++-
> > > >  net/sctp/socket.c          | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
> > > >  4 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/include/net/netns/sctp.h b/include/net/netns/sctp.h
> > > > index 3573a81815ad9e0efb6ceb721eb066d3726419f0..e080bebb3147af39c8275261f57018eb01e917b0 100644
> > > > --- a/include/net/netns/sctp.h
> > > > +++ b/include/net/netns/sctp.h
> > > > @@ -30,12 +30,15 @@ struct netns_sctp {
> > > >  	struct list_head local_addr_list;
> > > >  	struct list_head addr_waitq;
> > > >  	struct timer_list addr_wq_timer;
> > > > -	struct list_head auto_asconf_splist;
> > > > +	struct list_head __rcu auto_asconf_splist;
> > > You should use the addr_wq_lock here instead of creating a new lock, as thats
> > > already used to protect most accesses to the list you are concerned about.
> > 
> > Ok, that works too.
> > 
> > > Though truthfully, that shouldn't be necessecary.  The list in question is only
> > > read in one location and only written in one location.  You can likely just
> > > rcu-ify, as the write side is in process context and protected by lock_sock.
> > 
> > It should, it's not protected by lock_sock as this list resides in
> > netns_sctp structure, which lock_sock doesn't cover. Write side is in
> > process context yes, but this list is written in sctp_init_sock(),
> > sctp_destroy_sock() and sctp_setsockopt_auto_asconf(), so one could
> > trigger this by either creating/destroying sockets if
> > default_auto_asconf=1 or just by creating a bunch of sockets and
> > flipping asconf via setsockopt (or a combination of these operations).
> > (I'll point this out in the changelog)
> 
> Hmm.. by reusing addr_wq_lock we don't need to rcu-ify the list, as the
> reader is inside that lock too, so I can just protect auto_asconf_splist
> writers with addr_wq_lock.
> 
> Nice, thanks Neil.

Cannot really do that.. as that creates a lock inversion between
sctp_destroy_sock() (which already holds lock_sock) and
sctp_addr_wq_timeout_handler(), which first grabs addr_wq_lock and then
locks socket by socket.

Due to that, I'm afraid reusing this lock is not possible, and we should
stick with the patch.. what do you think? (though I have to fix the nits
in there)

  Marcelo