From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-wr1-f46.google.com (mail-wr1-f46.google.com [209.85.221.46]) (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 512C0260A4E for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2025 11:10:08 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.221.46 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1740741010; cv=none; b=SdQP2Lgsjfeay0Uc4P+DtKaV+GX2UF1aPICa01cYpnm/nf4Wk7LKspx16hxsmzO4+himl5JgFECz+Em2WPvdN6GW97fXIJOIfS+Q1eI4oSwRRXKvdh6g5pF5rN/17XdaPUf8RZqPOt/4mCDYRMx8uUU7y1if3kjF7dZeFJiwxys= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1740741010; c=relaxed/simple; bh=E037DhVCapPBoakU2dqv8HwLgqUFKwlWF11ok265wus=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:From:To:Cc:References: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=NrmKefLZNDob0P1uNRfu0T7nlH6iw+YZnEC3dXnX0bXAYj9hafjMNnHs8TeoHnXcE6/BBgso++o7fO8ny21EWxK/f8X2Z7BnfC/SQqQsjO2OBbjhF73GCZB9rIVUJYjiSEOgVCcYwIRmIYw5a/VIjft4NECq6o8vndIZjBFmw1Q= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=blackwall.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=blackwall.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=blackwall-org.20230601.gappssmtp.com header.i=@blackwall-org.20230601.gappssmtp.com header.b=iauPLKkA; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.221.46 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=blackwall.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=blackwall.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=blackwall-org.20230601.gappssmtp.com header.i=@blackwall-org.20230601.gappssmtp.com header.b="iauPLKkA" Received: by mail-wr1-f46.google.com with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-390dd3654aeso1127487f8f.2 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2025 03:10:07 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=blackwall-org.20230601.gappssmtp.com; s=20230601; t=1740741006; x=1741345806; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:content-language:references :cc:to:from:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id:from:to :cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=DD4bhF0kHfFymrlaMMfSMbLSI6fL031z/qgNsA1KNJY=; b=iauPLKkA2wrDFoRP804vwr/qxhnqDO2S4b0az43hrKLEjceRklVojUeBrBdNVKOE5O zx1s/YM/Ua8xCNTjW40WyhyXyhIk5jZU4wAB8/3WZBTc+m7z6JzYgMyZajSHV/FF7/Mk OIlZRJExgGQHBngyi1TIo4XZvSdn/6bn/okO7/P3pQ0hlvyncHTbF7Ok7WdkqpW9zJqg 10oeGzGjOp2Mt8HuIAZHeGaIsVz7Nypvzzcs01YW6/FCjz0cw+QzytKLMkSk1Jx10fxq qCNeQ1TPgEkawto/Rf/2/Sj7uG/zVM7PlfpbF8njy3lLDZk1PpZ5F03tPUuYVraBKh8W AG4A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1740741006; x=1741345806; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:content-language:references :cc:to:from:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=DD4bhF0kHfFymrlaMMfSMbLSI6fL031z/qgNsA1KNJY=; b=vaIRdxoGuLleAcZXxqeJC+WO2dh2rb5dBu4LK8uro6N/t1eypet502g2FQ49iy3pR4 yHkECU86Uptt+Xi74dQwUfPYQGPBs+w6d0H92qP5/tQY/OICMnquZewFM5moMwooEg54 i3DJDQMhS03NmivzZji4R8/oe7NAgK+xf8YFXQAyWwHxvVDlIZc3mESNhZIe+qWRT2qF PDvYdLpjitG9tcs11NP7G4QAkyEe3qD9u/me5dq14AADSzsULSSQyG2N23z9m56Zp441 4e44BvrMP7WPeNF3h9RpNyIk1q3oC+2QhiBISDWJDUSWpK2LywgMHuQdpNOSkqsDcSMe SVLQ== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCVrD4zlHwjISl8f0He51DPG5ei31MswQj/XPZe5lq1lQhw7LTfSPO/Dsxj4ETrR2MlA6Y47bA1+oRUdocM=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyWo4yrTqdRDAmeL67Xs2ZNzLfD0wRffh9WGpG3mNvWpr1s2yGM Eb5+3MFA+5TJUmVth+wKKkWphUxO0y44d70sw268pD3UGLbZY5dIlgouJ4tNG6g= X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncsPcgeC0/oT4jcF+JMQpCaxP07QHD9EzM+XLj8JcsDj4GT4pjShZWz1yhJe0Eo LBjjXzWh8k2epYgiudvFk6GMvalptYkel7/Va+BQF+bDldWvi90lJKHH4u2AsAO0ycxaJCqRew6 5YbSHAknj8Inqtkl70XgZ1XtUbDS0wApP4H62QaSRbLESGWa4pjtFyELke/wMfvPOPahxdyHZWI 2uGUrb9AH9Xg8JZGoOTM93w8Pg2G95uSwM1YPFbXE1ufEPomCzJAzxRQIyWLvpLG//EQinBkcyG gF4Qtuaz+lakUA2GL3x068qO9WEviIvgkD/QfXZIrKh1Vc9EqXZ3MaAZEQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHBwKxAFElOpdG+NI+BwrAkR/KxwPojeVWc8zD8i0wW4iQU4cQtM89ILFrbTkzbuYuexnWIFA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:1865:b0:390:e9e2:828e with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-390ec9becd8mr2465154f8f.32.1740741006281; Fri, 28 Feb 2025 03:10:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.0.205] (78-154-15-142.ip.btc-net.bg. [78.154.15.142]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id ffacd0b85a97d-390e4844a22sm4906513f8f.74.2025.02.28.03.10.04 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 28 Feb 2025 03:10:05 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <7c70ca13-143c-4011-bd28-4ff9944dd0a0@blackwall.org> Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2025 13:10:04 +0200 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 net 1/3] bonding: move IPsec deletion to bond_ipsec_free_sa From: Nikolay Aleksandrov To: Cosmin Ratiu , "liuhangbin@gmail.com" Cc: "andrew+netdev@lunn.ch" , "jarod@redhat.com" , "davem@davemloft.net" , Tariq Toukan , "linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org" , "shuah@kernel.org" , "steffen.klassert@secunet.com" , "jv@jvosburgh.net" , "kuba@kernel.org" , "horms@kernel.org" , "edumazet@google.com" , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Jianbo Liu , "pabeni@redhat.com" References: <20250227083717.4307-1-liuhangbin@gmail.com> <20250227083717.4307-2-liuhangbin@gmail.com> <446e8ef4-7ac0-43ad-99ff-29c21a2ee117@blackwall.org> <13cb4b16-51b0-4042-8435-6dac72586e55@blackwall.org> <76ed1d018596b81548d095aa2d4a9b31b360479c.camel@nvidia.com> Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 2/28/25 13:07, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote: > On 2/28/25 12:31, Cosmin Ratiu wrote: >> On Fri, 2025-02-28 at 02:20 +0000, Hangbin Liu wrote: >>> On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 03:31:01PM +0200, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote: >>>>>> One more thing - note I'm not an xfrm expert by far but it >>>>>> seems to me here you have >>>>>> to also call  xdo_dev_state_free() with the old active slave >>>>>> dev otherwise that will >>>>>> never get called with the original real_dev after the switch to >>>>>> a new >>>>>> active slave (or more accurately it might if the GC runs >>>>>> between the switching >>>>>> but it is a race), care must be taken wrt sequence of events >>>>>> because the XFRM >>>>> >>>>> Can we just call xs->xso.real_dev->xfrmdev_ops- >>>>>> xdo_dev_state_free(xs) >>>>> no matter xs->xso.real_dev == real_dev or not? I'm afraid calling >>>>> xdo_dev_state_free() every where may make us lot more easily. >>>>> >>>> >>>> You'd have to check all drivers that implement the callback to >>>> answer that and even then >>>> I'd stick to the canonical way of how it's done in xfrm and make >>>> the bond just passthrough. >>>> Any other games become dangerous and new code will have to be >>>> carefully reviewed every >>>> time, calling another device's free_sa when it wasn't added before >>>> doesn't sound good. >>>> >>>>>> GC may be running in parallel which probably means that in >>>>>> bond_ipsec_free_sa() >>>>>> you'll have to take the mutex before calling >>>>>> xdo_dev_state_free() and check >>>>>> if the entry is still linked in the bond's ipsec list before >>>>>> calling the free_sa >>>>>> callback, if it isn't then del_sa_all got to it before the GC >>>>>> and there's nothing >>>>>> to do if it also called the dev's free_sa callback. The check >>>>>> for real_dev doesn't >>>>>> seem enough to protect against this race. >>>>> >>>>> I agree that we need to take the mutex before calling >>>>> xdo_dev_state_free() >>>>> in bond_ipsec_free_sa(). Do you think if this is enough? I'm a >>>>> bit lot here. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> Hangbin >>>> >>>> Well, the race is between the xfrm GC and del_sa_all, in bond's >>>> free_sa if you >>>> walk the list under the mutex before calling real_dev's free >>>> callback and >>>> don't find the current element that's being freed in free_sa then >>>> it was >>>> cleaned up by del_sa_all, otherwise del_sa_all is waiting to walk >>>> that >>>> list and clean the entries. I think it should be fine as long as >>>> free_sa >>>> was called once with the proper device. >>> >>> OK, so the free will be called either in del_sa_all() or free_sa(). >>> Something like this? >>> >> [...] >> >> Unfortunately, after applying these changes and reasoning about them >> for a bit, I don't think this will work. There are still races left. >> For example: >> 1. An xs is marked DEAD (in __xfrm_state_delete, with x->lock held) and >> before .xdo_dev_state_delete() is called on it, bond_ipsec_del_sa_all >> is called in parallel, doesn't call delete on xs (because it's dead), >> then calls free (incorrect without delete first), then removes the list >> entry. Later, xdo_dev_state_delete( == bond_ipsec_del_sa) is called, >> and calls delete (incorrect, out of order with free). Finally, >> bond_ipsec_free_sa is called, which fortunately doesn't do anything >> silly in the new proposed form because xs is no longer in the list. >> >> 2. A more sinister form of the above race can happen when >> bond_ipsec_del_sa_all() calls delete on real_dev, then in parallel and >> immediately after __xfrm_state_delete marks xs as DEAD and calls >> bond_ipsec_del_sa() which happily calls delete on real_dev again. >> >> In order to fix these races (and others like it), I think >> bond_ipsec_del_sa_all and bond_ipsec_add_sa_all *need* to acquire x- >>> lock for each xs being processed. This would prevent xfrm from >> concurrently initiating add/delete operations on the managed states. >> >> Cosmin. > > Duh, right you are. The state is protected by x->lock and cannot be trusted > outside of it. If you take x->lock inside the list walk with the mutex held > you can deadlock. > > Cheers, > Nik > Correction - actually took a closer look at the xfrm code and it should be fine. The x->lock is taken only in the delete path and if the mutex is not acquired by bond's del_sa callback it should be ok. Though this must be very well documented.