Thread (1 message) flat view 1 message, 1 author, 2019-03-28

Re: [RFC PATCH] crypto: chtls - handle inet_csk_reqsk_queue_add() failures

From: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Date: 2019-03-28 05:40:05
Also in: linux-crypto

Guillaume Nault [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted hunk
While working on 9d3e1368bb45 ("tcp: handle inet_csk_reqsk_queue_add()
failures"), I missed this usage of inet_csk_reqsk_queue_add().

inet_csk_reqsk_queue_add() can fail. In that case, the operation is
aborted and inet_csk_destroy_sock() is called automatically, but we
need to free the request socket manually.

RFC:
Sending as RFC because I'm unsure about how to handle 'child' in that
case. I don't call add_to_reap_list(child) here, because
inet_csk_destroy_sock() has already run. Therefore, most of the
operations performed by add_to_reap_list()/process_reap_list() would be
redundant (but harmless). Except for two things:

 * process_reap_list() calls inet_csk_destroy_sock() if ->sk_state is
   TCP_CLOSE. We have to avoid that. Socket's state should be
   TCP_ESTABLISHED at the time of the call, but process_reap_list() is
   run asynchronously and I couldn't find anything that would
   prevent the rest of the system from accessing the socket before
   process_reap_list() picks it up (the socket is still accessible
   from cdev->tids). So I fear that calling add_to_reap_list() in the
   error path would let process_reap_list() call
   inet_csk_reqsk_queue_add() a second time if ->sk_state was
   concurrently set to TCP_CLOSE. That looks like a good reason not to
   call add_to_reap_list().

 * The only operation that process_reap_list() does and isn't already
   done by inet_csk_destroy_sock() is chtls_abort_conn(). This
   function has no effect if its sk_buff allocation fails. So it might
   be a no-op. That looks like another reason for not calling
   add_to_reap_list()...
   But what chtls_abort_conn() does when sk_buff allocation succeeds
   looks actually important. IIUC, it sends a message to trigger the
   removal of the socket (how would the socket be removed from ->tids
   otherwise?). That would make chtls_abort_conn() quite important.
   But then how do we avoid losing track of those defunct sockets when
   sk_buff allocation fails?

Compile-tested only.

Fixes: cc35c88ae4db ("crypto : chtls - CPL handler definition")
Reported-by: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Guillaume Nault <redacted>
---
drivers/crypto/chelsio/chtls/chtls_cm.c | 13 +++++++++----
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/crypto/chelsio/chtls/chtls_cm.c b/drivers/crypto/chelsio/chtls/chtls_cm.c
index 59b75299fcbc..4bf1e3f65400 100644
--- a/drivers/crypto/chelsio/chtls/chtls_cm.c
+++ b/drivers/crypto/chelsio/chtls/chtls_cm.c
@@ -1384,11 +1384,16 @@ static void add_pass_open_to_parent(struct sock *child, struct sock *lsk,
	if (sk_acceptq_is_full(lsk)) {
		chtls_reqsk_free(oreq);
		add_to_reap_list(child);
-	} else {
-		refcount_set(&oreq->rsk_refcnt, 1);
-		inet_csk_reqsk_queue_add(lsk, oreq, child);
-		lsk->sk_data_ready(lsk);
+		return;
+	}
+
+	refcount_set(&oreq->rsk_refcnt, 1);
+	if (!inet_csk_reqsk_queue_add(lsk, oreq, child)) {
+		chtls_reqsk_free(oreq);
+		/* child already dropped by inet_csk_destroy_sock() */
+		return;
	}
+	lsk->sk_data_ready(lsk);
}

static void bl_add_pass_open_to_parent(struct sock *lsk, struct sk_buff *skb)
Dave, Eric, could you guys take a look at this patch please?

Thanks!
-- 
Email: Herbert Xu [off-list ref]
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help