From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
To: David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>,
David Ahern <dsahern@kernel.org>,
davem@davemloft.net, jakub.kicinski@netronome.com
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] ipv6: Handle race in addrconf_dad_work
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2019 19:40:37 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <8a53dcff-729f-aaea-b136-ff997cf43e08@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <57eab627-8cc5-4834-a865-1970a290821a@gmail.com>
On 9/30/19 7:23 PM, David Ahern wrote:
> On 9/30/19 8:01 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>
>>
>> Do we need to keep the test on IF_READY done later in this function ?
>>
>> If IF_READY can disappear only under RTNL, we might clean this.
>>
>> (unless addrconf_dad_work() releases rtnl and reacquires it)
>
> Unless I am missing something none of the functions called by dad_work
> release the rtnl, but your comment did have me second guessing the locking.
>
> The interesting cases for changing the idev flag are addrconf_notify
> (NETDEV_UP and NETDEV_CHANGE) and addrconf_ifdown (reset the flag). The
> former does not have the idev lock - only rtnl. The latter has both.
> Checking the flag is inconsistent with respect to locks.
>
> As for your suggestion, the 'dead' flag is set only under rtnl in
> addrconf_ifdown and it means the device is getting removed (or IPv6 is
> disabled). Based on that I think the existing:
>
> if (idev->dead || !(idev->if_flags & IF_READY))
> goto out;
>
> can be moved to right after the rtnl_lock in addrconf_dad_work in place
> of the above change, so the end result is:
>
>
> diff --git a/net/ipv6/addrconf.c b/net/ipv6/addrconf.c
> index 6a576ff92c39..dd3be06d5a06 100644
> --- a/net/ipv6/addrconf.c
> +++ b/net/ipv6/addrconf.c
> @@ -4032,6 +4032,12 @@ static void addrconf_dad_work(struct work_struct *w)
>
> rtnl_lock();
>
> + /* check if device was taken down before this delayed work
> + * function could be canceled
> + */
> + if (idev->dead || !(idev->if_flags & IF_READY))
> + goto out;
> +
> spin_lock_bh(&ifp->lock);
> if (ifp->state == INET6_IFADDR_STATE_PREDAD) {
> action = DAD_BEGIN;
> @@ -4077,11 +4083,6 @@ static void addrconf_dad_work(struct work_struct *w)
> goto out;
>
> write_lock_bh(&idev->lock);
> - if (idev->dead || !(idev->if_flags & IF_READY)) {
> - write_unlock_bh(&idev->lock);
> - goto out;
> - }
> -
> spin_lock(&ifp->lock);
> if (ifp->state == INET6_IFADDR_STATE_DEAD) {
> spin_unlock(&ifp->lock);
>
>
> agree?
>
SGTM, thanks !
prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-10-01 2:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-10-01 1:37 [PATCH net] ipv6: Handle race in addrconf_dad_work David Ahern
2019-10-01 2:01 ` Eric Dumazet
2019-10-01 2:23 ` David Ahern
2019-10-01 2:40 ` Eric Dumazet [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=8a53dcff-729f-aaea-b136-ff997cf43e08@gmail.com \
--to=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=dsahern@gmail.com \
--cc=dsahern@kernel.org \
--cc=jakub.kicinski@netronome.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/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).