From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
To: dborkman@redhat.com
Cc: linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, vyasevich@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3] sctp: sctp_close: fix release of bindings for deferred call_rcu's
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2013 13:23:02 -0500 (EST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130204.132302.931092608711964255.davem@davemloft.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1359729463-11833-1-git-send-email-dborkman@redhat.com>
From: Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2013 15:37:43 +0100
> It seems due to RCU usage, i.e. within SCTP's address binding list,
> a, say, ``behavioral change'' was introduced which does actually
> not conform to the RFC anymore. In particular consider the following
> (fictional) scenario to demonstrate this:
>
> do:
> Two SOCK_SEQPACKET-style sockets are opened (S1, S2)
> S1 is bound to 127.0.0.1, port 1024 [server]
> S2 is bound to 127.0.0.1, port 1025 [client]
> listen(2) is invoked on S1
> From S2 we call one sendmsg(2) with msg.msg_name and
> msg.msg_namelen parameters set to the server's
> address
> S1, S2 are closed
> goto do
>
> The first pass of this loop passes successful, while the second round
> fails during binding of S1 (address still in use). What is happening?
> In the first round, the initial handshake is being done, and, at the
> time close(2) is called on S1, a non-graceful shutdown is performed via
> ABORT since in S1's receive queue an unprocessed packet is present,
> thus stating an error condition. This can be considered as a correct
> behavior.
>
> During close also all bound addresses are freed, thus nothing *must*
> be active anymore. In reference to RFC2960:
>
> After checking the Verification Tag, the receiving endpoint shall
> remove the association from its record, and shall report the
> termination to its upper layer. (9.1 Abort of an Association)
>
> Also, no half-open states are supported, thus after an ungraceful
> shutdown, we leave nothing behind. However, this seems not to be
> happening though. In a real-world scenario, this is exactly where
> it breaks the lksctp-tools functional test suite, *for instance*:
>
> ./test_sockopt
> test_sockopt.c 1 PASS : getsockopt(SCTP_STATUS) on a socket with no assoc
> test_sockopt.c 2 PASS : getsockopt(SCTP_STATUS)
> test_sockopt.c 3 PASS : getsockopt(SCTP_STATUS) with invalid associd
> test_sockopt.c 4 PASS : getsockopt(SCTP_STATUS) with NULL associd
> test_sockopt.c 5 BROK : bind: Address already in use
>
> The underlying problem is that sctp_endpoint_destroy() hasn't been
> triggered yet while the next bind attempt is being done. It will be
> triggered eventually (but too late) by sctp_transport_destroy_rcu()
> after one RCU grace period:
>
> sctp_transport_destroy()
> sctp_transport_destroy_rcu() ----.
> sctp_association_put() [*] <--+--> sctp_packet_free()
> sctp_association_destroy() [...]
> sctp_endpoint_put() skb->destructor
> sctp_endpoint_destroy() sctp_wfree()
> sctp_bind_addr_free() sctp_association_put() [*]
>
> Thus, we move out the condition with sctp_association_put() as well as
> the sctp_packet_free() invocation and the issue can be solved. We also
> better free the SCTP chunks first before putting the ref of the association.
>
> With this patch, the example above (which simulates a similar scenario
> as in the implementation of this test case) and therefore also the test
> suite run successfully through. Tested by myself.
>
> Cc: Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@redhat.com>
Applied.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-02-04 18:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-02-01 14:37 [PATCH net-next v3] sctp: sctp_close: fix release of bindings for deferred call_rcu's Daniel Borkmann
2013-02-01 14:55 ` Vlad Yasevich
2013-02-04 12:10 ` Neil Horman
2013-02-04 18:23 ` David Miller [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20130204.132302.931092608711964255.davem@davemloft.net \
--to=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=dborkman@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=vyasevich@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).