On 7/9/19 3:25 PM, Jon Maloy wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Eric Dumazet <eric.duma...@gmail.com>
>> Sent: 9-Jul-19 03:31
>> To: Chris Packham <chris.pack...@alliedtelesis.co.nz>; Eric Dumazet
>> <eric.duma...@gmail.com>; Jon Maloy <jon.ma...@ericsson.com>;
>> ying....@windriver.com; da...@davemloft.net
>> Cc: net...@vger.kernel.org; tipc-discuss...@lists.sourceforge.net; linux-
>> ker...@vger.kernel.org
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] tipc: ensure skb->lock is initialised
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/8/19 11:13 PM, Chris Packham wrote:
>>> On 9/07/19 8:43 AM, Chris Packham wrote:
>>>> On 8/07/19 8:18 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 7/8/19 12:53 AM, Chris Packham wrote:
>>>>>> tipc_named_node_up() creates a skb list. It passes the list to
>>>>>> tipc_node_xmit() which has some code paths that can call
>>>>>> skb_queue_purge() which relies on the list->lock being initialised.
>>>>>> Ensure tipc_named_node_up() uses skb_queue_head_init() so that the
>>>>>> lock is explicitly initialised.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Chris Packham <chris.pack...@alliedtelesis.co.nz>
>>>>>
>>>>> I would rather change the faulty skb_queue_purge() to
>>>>> __skb_queue_purge()
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Makes sense. I'll look at that for v2.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Actually maybe not. tipc_rcast_xmit(), tipc_node_xmit_skb(),
>>> tipc_send_group_msg(), __tipc_sendmsg(), __tipc_sendstream(), and
>>> tipc_sk_timeout() all use skb_queue_head_init(). So my original change
>>> brings tipc_named_node_up() into line with them.
>>>
>>> I think it should be safe for tipc_node_xmit() to use
>>> __skb_queue_purge() since all the callers seem to have exclusive
>>> access to the list of skbs. It still seems that the callers should all
>>> use
>>> skb_queue_head_init() for consistency.
>
> I agree with that.
>
>>>
>>
>> No, tipc does not use the list lock (it relies on the socket lock) and
>> therefore
>> should consistently use __skb_queue_head_init() instead of
>> skb_queue_head_init()
>
> TIPC is using the list lock at message reception within the scope of
> tipc_sk_rcv()/tipc_skb_peek_port(), so it is fundamental that the lock always
> is correctly initialized.
Where is the lock acquired, why was it only acquired by queue purge and not
normal dequeues ???
>
>>
> [...]
>>
>> tipc_link_xmit() for example never acquires the spinlock, yet uses skb_peek()
>> and __skb_dequeue()
>
>
> You should look at tipc_node_xmit instead. Node local messages are sent
> directly to tipc_sk_rcv(), and never go through tipc_link_xmit()
tipc_node_xmit() calls tipc_link_xmit() eventually, right ?
Please show me where the head->lock is acquired, and why it needed.
If this is mandatory, then more fixes are needed than just initializing the
lock for lockdep purposes.
