Re: [PATCHv3 net 1/3] bonding: move IPsec deletion to bond_ipsec_free_sa

Cosmin Ratiu
2025-02-28T10:32:00Z

On Fri, 2025-02-28 at 02:20 +0000, Hangbin Liu wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 03:31:01PM +0200, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
> > > > One more thing - note I'm not an xfrm expert by far but it
> > > > seems to me here you have
> > > > to also call  xdo_dev_state_free() with the old active slave
> > > > dev otherwise that will
> > > > never get called with the original real_dev after the switch to
> > > > a new
> > > > active slave (or more accurately it might if the GC runs
> > > > between the switching
> > > > but it is a race), care must be taken wrt sequence of events
> > > > because the XFRM
> > >
> > > Can we just call xs->xso.real_dev->xfrmdev_ops-
> > > >xdo_dev_state_free(xs)
> > > no matter xs->xso.real_dev == real_dev or not? I'm afraid calling
> > > xdo_dev_state_free() every where may make us lot more easily.
> > >
> >
> > You'd have to check all drivers that implement the callback to
> > answer that and even then
> > I'd stick to the canonical way of how it's done in xfrm and make
> > the bond just passthrough.
> > Any other games become dangerous and new code will have to be
> > carefully reviewed every
> > time, calling another device's free_sa when it wasn't added before
> > doesn't sound good.
> >
> > > > GC may be running in parallel which probably means that in
> > > > bond_ipsec_free_sa()
> > > > you'll have to take the mutex before calling
> > > > xdo_dev_state_free() and check
> > > > if the entry is still linked in the bond's ipsec list before
> > > > calling the free_sa
> > > > callback, if it isn't then del_sa_all got to it before the GC
> > > > and there's nothing
> > > > to do if it also called the dev's free_sa callback. The check
> > > > for real_dev doesn't
> > > > seem enough to protect against this race.
> > >
> > > I agree that we need to take the mutex before calling
> > > xdo_dev_state_free()
> > > in bond_ipsec_free_sa(). Do you think if this is enough? I'm a
> > > bit lot here.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Hangbin
> >
> > Well, the race is between the xfrm GC and del_sa_all, in bond's
> > free_sa if you
> > walk the list under the mutex before calling real_dev's free
> > callback and
> > don't find the current element that's being freed in free_sa then
> > it was
> > cleaned up by del_sa_all, otherwise del_sa_all is waiting to walk
> > that
> > list and clean the entries. I think it should be fine as long as
> > free_sa
> > was called once with the proper device.
>
> OK, so the free will be called either in del_sa_all() or free_sa().
> Something like this?
>
[...]

Unfortunately, after applying these changes and reasoning about them
for a bit, I don't think this will work. There are still races left.
For example:
1. An xs is marked DEAD (in __xfrm_state_delete, with x->lock held) and
before .xdo_dev_state_delete() is called on it, bond_ipsec_del_sa_all
is called in parallel, doesn't call delete on xs (because it's dead),
then calls free (incorrect without delete first), then removes the list
entry. Later, xdo_dev_state_delete( == bond_ipsec_del_sa) is called,
and calls delete (incorrect, out of order with free). Finally,
bond_ipsec_free_sa is called, which fortunately doesn't do anything
silly in the new proposed form because xs is no longer in the list.

2. A more sinister form of the above race can happen when
bond_ipsec_del_sa_all() calls delete on real_dev, then in parallel and
immediately after __xfrm_state_delete marks xs as DEAD and calls
bond_ipsec_del_sa() which happily calls delete on real_dev again.

In order to fix these races (and others like it), I think
bond_ipsec_del_sa_all and bond_ipsec_add_sa_all *need* to acquire x-
>lock for each xs being processed. This would prevent xfrm from
concurrently initiating add/delete operations on the managed states.

Cosmin.