From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jamal Hadi Salim Subject: Re: [patch net-next 2/2] net/sched: fix filter flushing Date: Mon, 22 May 2017 06:42:44 -0400 Message-ID: References: <20170520130132.1626-1-jiri@resnulli.us> <20170520130132.1626-2-jiri@resnulli.us> <20170521055416.GA1848@nanopsycho> <20170521191941.GA4278@nanopsycho> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Linux Kernel Network Developers , David Miller , Eric Dumazet , Daniel Borkmann , Simon Horman , mlxsw@mellanox.com, Colin King To: Jiri Pirko , Cong Wang Return-path: Received: from mail-qk0-f193.google.com ([209.85.220.193]:35698 "EHLO mail-qk0-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750850AbdEVKmq (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 May 2017 06:42:46 -0400 Received: by mail-qk0-f193.google.com with SMTP id k74so18298235qke.2 for ; Mon, 22 May 2017 03:42:46 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20170521191941.GA4278@nanopsycho> Content-Language: en-GB Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 17-05-21 03:19 PM, Jiri Pirko wrote: > Sun, May 21, 2017 at 08:27:21PM CEST, xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com wrote: >> On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 10:54 PM, Jiri Pirko wrote: >>> Sun, May 21, 2017 at 02:16:45AM CEST, xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com wrote: >>>> On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 6:01 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote: >>>>> +static void tcf_chain_destroy(struct tcf_chain *chain) >>>>> +{ >>>>> + list_del(&chain->list); >>>>> + tcf_chain_flush(chain); >>>>> kfree(chain); >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> @@ -510,7 +517,7 @@ static int tc_ctl_tfilter(struct sk_buff *skb, struct nlmsghdr *n, >>>>> >>>>> if (n->nlmsg_type == RTM_DELTFILTER && prio == 0) { >>>>> tfilter_notify_chain(net, skb, n, chain, RTM_DELTFILTER); >>>>> - tcf_chain_destroy(chain); >>>>> + tcf_chain_flush(chain); >>>> >>>> >>>> I wonder if we should return EBUSY and do nothing in case of busy? >>>> The chain is no longer visual to new actions after your list_del(), but >>>> the old one could still use and see it. >>> >>> No. User request to flush the chain, that is what happens in the past >>> and that is what should happen now. >>> If there is still a reference, the chain_put will keep the empty chain. >> >> But if you dump the actions, this chain is still shown "goto chain"? > > Yes, it will be shown there. > > >> You can't claim you really delete it as long as actions can still >> see it and dump it. > > No, user just wants to delete all the filters. That is done. User does > not care if the actual chain structure is there or not. > I am trying to visualize a scenario where this is a problem. Using gact action it may be possible to cause issues (requires validating - when i get time I will test). Steps are something like: 1. create filter on chain 11 (refcnt = 1) 2. create gact action index 5 goto chain 11 (refcnt =2) 3'. create new filter on chain 0 ... action gact index 5 3''. create new filter on chain 0 ... action gact index 5 None of the #3 steps will increment the refcnt. Delete the filter from #1 (refcnt becomes 1) Delete the filter from #3'1 (refcnt = 0, destroy happens) Filter #3'' is still hanging there. Dump that and strange things happen. cheers, jamal