On Sat, 2017-01-14 at 14:53 +0100, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
> Hello Eric,
>
> On 01/14/2017 04:43 AM, Liu Shuo wrote:
> > On Thu 12.Jan'17 at 17:33:38 +0100, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
> >> On 01/12/2017 02:01 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
> >>> The main problem seems that the sockets themselves are not RCU
> >>> protected.
> >>>
> >>> If CAN uses RCU for delivery, then sockets should be freed only after
> >>> one RCU grace period.
> >>>
> >>> On recent kernels, following patch could help :
> >>>
> >>
> >> Thanks Eric!
> >>
> >> @Liu ShuoX: Can you check if Eric's suggestion fixes the issue in your
> >> setup?
> > Sorry for late reply. I was OOO yesterday.
> > With Eric's hint, i just found his patch that "net: add SOCK_RCU_FREE
> > socket flag" in the latest kernel. With backporting this one plus Eric's
> > following patch, it fixs my failure.
>
> what would be the best approach to fix this issue - even in stable kernels?
>
> E.g. would this change be ok for a stable as a quick fix?
>
> diff --git a/net/can/af_can.c b/net/can/af_can.c
> index 1108079d934f..6b974c2b66ef 100644
> --- a/net/can/af_can.c
> +++ b/net/can/af_can.c
> @@ -112,6 +112,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(can_ioctl);
>
> static void can_sock_destruct(struct sock *sk)
> {
> + synchronize_rcu();
> skb_queue_purge(&sk->sk_receive_queue);
> }
Adding a synchronize_rcu() at socket close time might have side effects,
if say an application had 1000 such sockets and dies.
This might add 20 seconds of exit time and have serious implications.
I will submit the second patch : It is working for all linux versions.
>
> And once this arrived in the mainline tree your suggested patch could be
> applied?
>
> In any case we should not forget to give Reported-by credits to Liu.
Sure
