From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-wm1-f45.google.com (mail-wm1-f45.google.com [209.85.128.45]) (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 6647A260A52 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2025 11:07:23 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.128.45 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1740740845; cv=none; b=TfCX78KoQWHSo92DA2sveg2JnFAbaKkos+SDVCflMgQnl7HQ0dKeOy8NbYkdvuvxfQWzCNEFC1fFYjrAH0wfNMkLu7UpT7/iA0j5tf7OPGbfItdy6/iIi/JFQ2xlnoPLVgEk7KN9ZuyTL7Adbynp2E6LFcr5ZxMJeKYK5Wfse2o= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1740740845; c=relaxed/simple; bh=oxS3D1+bWCdWf/O3kma8r+tOX5j3w/Z2DbftKYa1FUA=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=IjuPQtTl+e9jErxFO++v3iMfARkikljDVoc1hPxTwMgWUijDa+Eha2SyogpQQcY90bxAq0iayGlLu4CUvbMkyeyTB5rmgb00x6NWdgWis9OEW4syUWBn6TYQu2zkurGIP5Tdq2IwPkvUvaSb8DzWvzD3OTj7Z7lBFsHXd05eQI4= 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=TyBmdm8+; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.128.45 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="TyBmdm8+" Received: by mail-wm1-f45.google.com with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-439a4dec9d5so20711575e9.0 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2025 03:07:23 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=blackwall-org.20230601.gappssmtp.com; s=20230601; t=1740740842; x=1741345642; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:content-language :references:cc:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=Zd6cBLv8z68rtL/L7WHD5EmDRb0PMF8fi6e4fzSvi44=; b=TyBmdm8+HTXWcvSodydGM5F7ILoG5Xe5eKAiqBJQIJ559ARyiA5vnc4JCqSxSPhabJ V3bDtqCuOp2semRLf37BqC1Au8+bZ8PoIbNr2/WyRs1RmpIwsr/t9tMERrKjHC55l3pv zzkCeZdMqFPjHJgRBl8n2AgZ7rFHJbp1vnosU9wbnh8sAQHm26GWEa71e8SQvNScHbsO dHoJt+anrMRVlaVyhQQe7skM5Zu9UbSwGd6Ok1H7SYf7+C4Q8/nlYD8B8aXhW0iCl5/l a/nPhT6Gga7PXv7Og0ZDYn6y7rkdpY/XfW9v5sNaALOgvKiJgyKU/u4dAyrNDqOq73zJ 2H5w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1740740842; x=1741345642; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:content-language :references:cc:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=Zd6cBLv8z68rtL/L7WHD5EmDRb0PMF8fi6e4fzSvi44=; b=PX1PJq+uDPzVOrAYDFWFqi3bTRR6E5q0hpimU9p9vF3v0bBJRF6az8gKNemab6/QU4 ALMbIlP+OJLKYVi22BJnmGEfkZrWNr+wDN0KFruk+x/r/wVVwWb5V2RH6RSOqSczos13 7OnAHO+P5YOAfaRK6BfYZ/7cosar068tshBmkP4c2jnxDvWu521R9KoLi4ugsUHmqJx0 qbl2B7ZZ87A4XWxdNRWJknZSy+p8fxe0hFheTgivFmqo/NiAy2NxBf/qqyp0W2w6/tSo +lGdPydouYGKDYD6MPleUK7Od/QWA/TC/ZFslVUgOpr1E2dXoSFG3GxM58RPtdmphDRb g12w== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCVMDFpkpfKtZqkd4rCFDDVIOzTPaYpj3pAysat2zx/w2kzkN5Po7HqZbNo21YPuZqWjzMmUXQvLDVLe94A=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yz7FZ+Cn866mjQjYpJc8in0q61O28d8nbvGO2IGwrUIcrjIRc9d 9w1n42kFHCO+Z77j9Ld6sQN+usAfjP9+qG6zw4WlhhPu4o04+26ZmtNsfzvfkwc= X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncuPWiLqUFkuMfDgvjQoP9jDKDEvRtdPltzKZyZ8In3nP3nhK6ssXSElzbg0ktn EbFAJJcU5GP+yxwqKqwZcsBCGXm1zhWtYkhL5fJ9M1310NHU3Nf4apoRhB9nh6fbNea9/Ib8z5J v6iMKGy4jrAXymBJFQmHb8G6qB1pbPPD0qwF0uxntLS7QkUMHaqBA4BbDLfgl2sjx1LssFGnsZ5 N4PcF4+pYj+9p2Kqyvy1F0Iy4wNhmxMJJc9cQoo/BVymn7msOHo7FVwRE/jt/dEv9FQl0QBGCT2 NHG/WBFu/RRP+sQOi8fLC3tNoKI2qTAyeCV9tb/q5PojgVONE8UmruIx4g== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IH91pMAPLSadsf+RNRWI0zz9P3MfkuBchVOwSQOEqwxoqoJ6x/WNs/GRbayY2jKTHKyAR6gRA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:1c1f:b0:439:9eba:93bb with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-43ba67049b8mr28277205e9.18.1740740841365; Fri, 28 Feb 2025 03:07:21 -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 5b1f17b1804b1-43b7a28c6fesm51527215e9.37.2025.02.28.03.07.20 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 28 Feb 2025 03:07:20 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2025 13:07:19 +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 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 From: Nikolay Aleksandrov In-Reply-To: <76ed1d018596b81548d095aa2d4a9b31b360479c.camel@nvidia.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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