Re: [PATCH net 5/7] virtio_net: Don't process redirected XDP frames when XDP is disabled
From: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
Date: 2019-01-18 03:53:12
On 2019/1/18 上午9:56, Toshiaki Makita wrote:
On 2019/01/17 22:05, Jason Wang wrote:quoted
On 2019/1/17 下午8:53, Jason Wang wrote:quoted
On 2019/1/17 下午7:20, Toshiaki Makita wrote:quoted
Commit 8dcc5b0ab0ec ("virtio_net: fix ndo_xdp_xmit crash towards dev not ready for XDP") tried to avoid access to unexpected sq while XDP is disabled, but was not complete. There was a small window which causes out of bounds sq access in virtnet_xdp_xmit() while disabling XDP. An example case of - curr_queue_pairs = 6 (2 for SKB and 4 for XDP) - online_cpu_num = xdp_queue_paris = 4 when XDP is enabled: CPU 0 CPU 1 (Disabling XDP) (Processing redirected XDP frames) virtnet_xdp_xmit() virtnet_xdp_set() _virtnet_set_queues() set curr_queue_pairs (2) check if rq->xdp_prog is not NULL virtnet_xdp_sq(vi) qp = curr_queue_pairs - xdp_queue_pairs + smp_processor_id() = 2 - 4 + 1 = -1 sq = &vi->sq[qp] // out of bounds access set xdp_queue_pairs (0) rq->xdp_prog = NULL Basically we should not change curr_queue_pairs and xdp_queue_pairs while someone can read the values. Thus, when disabling XDP, assign NULL to rq->xdp_prog first, and wait for RCU grace period, then change xxx_queue_pairs. Note that we need to keep the current order when enabling XDP though. Fixes: 186b3c998c50 ("virtio-net: support XDP_REDIRECT") Signed-off-by: Toshiaki Makita <redacted>I wonder whether or not we could simply do: if (prog) {Should be !progquoted
rcu_assign_pointer() synchronize_net() } set queues if (!prog) {Should be prog.Either would work. With your suggestion the code will look like: --- if (!prog) { for (...) { rcu_assign_pointer(); ... } synchronize_net(); } virtnet_set_queues(); netif_set_real_num_rx_queues(); vi->xdp_queue_pairs = xdp_qp; if (prog) { for (...) { rcu_assign_pointer(); ... } }
Yes, I think this makes code more easier to be understand.
--- But strictly speaking, virtnet_set_queues() should not be necessary if (prog != NULL && old_prog != NULL).
Yes, but it was another possible 'issue'.
If you prefer this, I can modify it accordingly.
I prefer to do this change. Thanks