From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pl1-f173.google.com (mail-pl1-f173.google.com [209.85.214.173]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F34B3016EE for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2026 19:07:53 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.214.173 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1774033674; cv=none; b=IrFtKbJRSSdM54OSncOT+4c2ROLwbs9Nxq94OSp++mqj7i4Z8E0Ybde4cyKChTMr55Dfmvgt+qm+Hge209LSRgqwaYagmttKemNt8Q5nI53V3Kp2Al8XdxM3fsm6RnBUcDjBq7INNvxSkESQPIq4mBC7I/qQshkJiy168/4Wcpg= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1774033674; c=relaxed/simple; bh=fqPZ1DoPKEE+S1xQxtkJ230d6THkL7sJkITNUNtTYCE=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=u15lwG8+Of1lBHdMeevCqA75x1HbyQovCbvcc7w3GUEw+40pRjubYsTapqE2Cpexvoft5n155d21u3VHFsOJwnAvdPGrJPDnX3O2/wQLpQg9P5/kbJ+sriS5DJt+jMBPlF+zEnD33eMPZbs8EBq2igIqxO/RnRsdB/5U6VrqibY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=IB2/pvJa; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.214.173 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="IB2/pvJa" Received: by mail-pl1-f173.google.com with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-2ab232cc803so4117735ad.3 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2026 12:07:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1774033672; x=1774638472; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=ZMUniGDw728Tp8arnr33yr6amzfh9K+uQrZYNbZSoCs=; b=IB2/pvJa5Bbe4Ht/dWKmLLPB4L96OlEqYMWGB/Hcz5LkRaRDVyyiye9/MxtUEhqNCc Mff5I8iE9CoQduoigWwCiYQW7Z/HWBn4+iGFe3grg5yfM9tdzwUQzz9S0TCr5R4XBUOV cX6znAzB2WT4Bbja4cX21zAsn7oWYgkfj0GbTVobZoY+vgGc2ni2cjoT58SnoTfgneLT vdZV0+CCB6sSfxyK4Bsjfxa19R56/4s5TwRa96csns2sP2FdAK0/ncAenTrqKG9DfN18 gh1UVguMIsEuhjHX6LXCHNc2Lh2bE3+KIpKX1ZbTk5UYGsXFX8supJljKumfSGCjci5M hB+w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20251104; t=1774033672; x=1774638472; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-gg:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=ZMUniGDw728Tp8arnr33yr6amzfh9K+uQrZYNbZSoCs=; b=alMsCq1OzHSGeWV0lTbLfMRS9zoFXQb8ymxsJdg9NeBwM+KCDHXUVo8GhjU4i1wDv2 u11BojcGBLK29KXgIaBVFeVWtkkRXrmqYY8s0cXQSYkWOfsnN3nCJZPlpbHoldo6XR2E Ye2rGpD+AqKvqSqXXyve63XF9t7WAQdzyRbedfyfwul4SDz1fYBnn39y4rDm4qL7giWt gc9gfpSWX0Rs/4IZEMrY851RhgdZNLIHH2DWkiKSTknpf8K90nmUKQnsDF8uxC9dIiqx WQk8Hm47zGfRzbFKDwfakX9A2fmBuna3/ImUuRHSyqajIYOkEO/WGkEdUFCwiJ4T4bco 11pw== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCWj8QAIETFCSTYHE2/bKRw1842nwA/wei5FEhMVugqKt6f3RZryE3PHEW7/XAk8R3jrsXEF44Q=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yw+/UYZ+yurHG1Rr1l5LQsSvkK0XejY3lbfOJD4TsH2teoAGHI5 RK/7iIVqxotSS7r9rpPkWiHYtl9NKAqK1klEpked9xjGe77oSS9xHhK4 X-Gm-Gg: ATEYQzxraM1aCFhfFDm8b3DFM1i9hx9da3SUk/+xFe+wqXtBZwUvUP55sScMt3yaRo4 tZECbMdIuzhc5gaNUO7pP8nm7G6cXOLXdYlBo/g1w0U7iTF7anhhj4RPSMujjglUy1bfPFJE2/M 5Y8LsHPteQvSqgbDH/MorRZYERUuuI6G6T8yT53fyT2qPRkOUWx8iWPcKJbqn1l2HnVu5uRcZg4 nVkuLuBDo8VbE3VadhPcWlZ/vdTxtfgzacyW45qp/7uWnWb0Ow1u+YJhofH7o7P9sS0eCLrw9+Z 4MT806yfscjUPmIhp2XDnotTFPVUb6Utn7WyUpx9CkL9cYtwq3mQkDrRatLos2LOzF3IcAL8NUQ e5EPCCHERbDSolG4+zgC3pJW6Sg5thGPv4oi3IU+EUIs8e00o56gUdOq5eOoQO01m/sB+rgE+og xxN3Z9ygGQXXTbz6HcTk3UU99fNDmZt7TScvmsALt5hQ== X-Received: by 2002:a17:903:2984:b0:2ae:c981:2a29 with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-2b0826d826emr36557095ad.2.1774033672390; Fri, 20 Mar 2026 12:07:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from v4bel ([58.123.110.97]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d9443c01a7336-2b08366c56bsm46446475ad.57.2026.03.20.12.07.49 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 20 Mar 2026 12:07:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2026 04:07:47 +0900 From: Hyunwoo Kim To: Sabrina Dubroca Cc: davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com, kuba@kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com, horms@kernel.org, Julia.Lawall@inria.fr, linux@treblig.org, nate.karstens@garmin.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, imv4bel@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2] strparser: Fix race condition in strp_done() Message-ID: References: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Wed, Mar 11, 2026 at 01:13:45PM +0900, Hyunwoo Kim wrote: > On Fri, Mar 06, 2026 at 08:41:02PM +0900, Hyunwoo Kim wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 06, 2026 at 11:13:19AM +0100, Sabrina Dubroca wrote: > > > 2026-03-06, 09:11:04 +0900, Hyunwoo Kim wrote: > > > > On Fri, Mar 06, 2026 at 12:35:48AM +0100, Sabrina Dubroca wrote: > > > > > Sorry for the delay, I wanted to think about the race condition a bit > > > > > more. > > > > > > > > > > 2026-03-03, 10:50:05 +0900, Hyunwoo Kim wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 03, 2026 at 12:10:33AM +0100, Sabrina Dubroca wrote: > > > > > > > 2026-02-27, 06:51:10 +0900, Hyunwoo Kim wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2026 at 06:20:58PM +0100, Sabrina Dubroca wrote: > > > > > > > > > 2026-02-20, 18:29:55 +0900, Hyunwoo Kim wrote: > > > > > > > > > "strp stopped" is not really enough, I think we'd also need to reset > > > > > > > > > the CBs, and then grab bh_lock_sock to make sure a previously-running > > > > > > > > > ->sk_data_ready has completed. This is what kcm does, at least. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It seems that this is not something that should be handled inside strp itself, > > > > > > > > but rather something that each caller of strp_stop() is expected to take care > > > > > > > > of individually. Would that be the right direction? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It also appears that ovpn and kcm handle this by implementing their own callback > > > > > > > > restoration logic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right. I tried to look at skmsg/psock (the other user of strp), but > > > > > > > didn't get far enough to verify if it's handling this correctly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Without that, if strp_recv runs in parallel (not from strp->work) with > > > > > > > > > strp_done, cleaning up skb_head in strp_done seems problematic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From the espintcp perspective, how about applying a patch along the following lines? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is what I was thinking about, yes. > > > > > > > > > > > > In my opinion, it might be cleaner to split the espintcp callback restoration work into > > > > > > a separate patch, rather than merging it into the strparser v3 patch. What do you think? > > > > > > > > > > Sure. But once espintcp is fixed in that way, can the original race > > > > > condition with strparser still occur? release_sock() will wait for any > > > > > > > > If the espintcp callback restoration patch is applied, the strparser > > > > race should no longer occur in espintcp. > > > > > > > > > espintcp_data_ready()/strp_data_ready() that's already running, and a > > > > > sk_data_ready that starts after we've changed the callbacks will not > > > > > end up in strp_data_ready() at all so it won't restart the works that > > > > > are being stopped by strp_done()? > > > > > > > > > > It's quite reasonable to use disable*_work_sync in strp_done, but I'm > > > > > not sure there's a bug other than espintcp not terminating itself > > > > > correctly on the socket. > > > > > > > > That said, the _cancel APIs in strparser still appear to carry some > > > > structural risk, so it might still make sense to switch to the _disable > > > > APIs for the benefit of other strp users or potential future callers. > > > > > > Not really. Every user of strp that is open to the strp_recv vs > > > cancel_* race is also open to the strp_recv vs free race, so switching > > > from cancel_* to disable_* is only a partial fix. > > > > > > But if we took and released the socket lock in strp_done, we would > > > solve the issue for all users even without resetting the callbacks? > > > > Looks good to me. With this change, it seems the issue can be resolved > > not only for espintcp but for all strp users. > > > > When strp_stop() runs first: > > ``` > > cpu0 cpu1 > > > > espintcp_close() > > strp_stop() > > strp->stopped = 1; > > espintcp_data_ready() > > strp_data_ready() > > if (unlikely(strp->stopped)) return; > > strp_done() > > lock_sock(); > > release_sock(); > > cancel_delayed_work_sync(&strp->msg_timer_work); > > kfree_skb(strp->skb_head); > > ``` > > > > When strp_data_ready() runs first: > > ``` > > cpu0 cpu1 > > > > espintcp_data_ready() > > strp_data_ready() > > if (unlikely(strp->stopped)) return; > > espintcp_close() > > strp_stop() > > strp->stopped = 1; > > strp_done() > > lock_sock(); > > strp_read_sock() > > tcp_read_sock() > > __tcp_read_sock() > > strp_recv() > > __strp_recv() > > head = strp->skb_head; > > strp_start_timer() > > mod_delayed_work(&strp->msg_timer_work); > > ... > > release_sock(); > > cancel_delayed_work_sync(&strp->msg_timer_work); > > kfree_skb(strp->skb_head); > > ``` > > In both cases, the race does not appear to cause any problem. > > > > > > > > @@ -503,6 +503,10 @@ void strp_done(struct strparser *strp) > > > { > > > WARN_ON(!strp->stopped); > > > > > > + lock_sock(strp->sk); > > > + /* sync with other code */ > > > + release_sock(strp->sk); > > > + > > > cancel_delayed_work_sync(&strp->msg_timer_work); > > > cancel_work_sync(&strp->work); > > > > > > > > > > > > - strp->stopped so any new call into strp_data_ready will not do anything > > > > > > - lock/release need to take bh_lock_sock so any existing call to > > > strp_data_ready will have to complete before we move on to cancel*_work > > > > > > > > > > > > Or maybe the requirement should be that strp_stop has to be called > > > > From my perspective, adding lock_sock() inside strp_done(), as in the > > patch above, looks cleaner. > > > > > under lock_sock() (or even just bh_lock_sock), but again I can't > > > figure out if that's ok for sockmap. > > > > sockmap/psock has a more complex call stack compared to other strp > > users, so I'm also not entirely certain about that part. > > I looked into the sockmap/psock side. sk_psock_strp_data_ready() is protected > by read_lock_bh(&sk->sk_callback_lock), and during teardown sk_psock_drop() > performs callback restoration and strp_stop() under > write_lock_bh(&sk->sk_callback_lock), so sockmap/psock doesn't have this race > to begin with. > > As for introducing this patch, in sockmap/psock strp_done() is only called > from sk_psock_destroy(), which is scheduled via queue_rcu_work() and runs > on system_percpu_wq after an RCU GP, so no locks including lock_sock are held > at that point. And since lock_sock is released before cancel_work_sync, > there's no circular dependency with do_strp_work/strp_msg_timeout either. > So this patch shouldn't introduce any new issues for sockmap/psock. Hi Sabrina, Could you please provide an update on the status of this patch? Best regards, Hyunwoo Kim > > > > > > > > > > > > > With that in mind, perhaps the direct fix for this race could be handled > > > > in the espintcp callback restoration patch. For the strparser patch, I > > > > could instead adjust the commit message to reflect that it removes a > > > > potential hazard by replacing the _cancel APIs with the _disable > > > > variants, and resubmit it in that form. > > > > > > I'm not going to nack a patch doing s/cancel_/disable_/ in strp_done, > > > but it doesn't fully solve the race condition if the caller isn't > > > doing the right thing, and it doesn't do anything if the strp user is > > > handling the teardown correctly. > > > > I agree with your point there. Still, after the core patches addressing > > this race are applied, I plan to resubmit the _disable patch with an > > updated commit message. I think applying that change is still beneficial. > > > > > > Best regards, > > Hyunwoo Kim