Re: [PATCH net] sched: fix infinite loop when creating tc filter
From: Volodymyr Mytnyk [C] <hidden>
Date: 2021-10-13 09:44:10
Also in:
lkml
Hi Vlad, Thanks for your review comments and good explanation of the problem you observe. I will take a look at this and will back to you. Regards, Volodymyr
Hi Volodymyr, On Sun 10 Oct 2021 at 09:55, Volodymyr Mytnyk [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
From: Volodymyr Mytnyk <redacted> After running a specific set of commands tc will become unresponsive: $ ip link add dev DEV type veth $ tc qdisc add dev DEV clsact $ tc chain add dev DEV chain 0 ingress $ tc filter del dev DEV ingress $ tc filter add dev DEV ingress flower action pass When executing chain flush, the "chain->flushing" field is set to true, which prevents insertion of new classifier instances. It is unset in one place under two conditions: `refcnt - chain->action_refcnt == 0` and `!by_act`. Ignoring the by_act and action_refcnt arguments the `flushing procedure` will be over when refcnt is 0. But if the chain is explicitly created (e.g. `tc chain add .. chain 0 ..`) refcnt is set to 1 without any classifier instances. Thus the condition is never met and the chain->flushing field is never cleared. And because the default chain is `flushing` new classifiers cannot be added. tc_new_tfilter is stuck in a loop trying to find a chain where chain->flushing is false. By moving `chain->flushing = false` from __tcf_chain_put to the end of tcf_chain_flush will avoid the condition and the field will always be reset after the flush procedure. Fixes: 91052fa1c657 ("net: sched: protect chain->explicitly_created with block->lock")Thanks for working on this!quoted
Co-developed-by: Serhiy Boiko <redacted> Signed-off-by: Serhiy Boiko <redacted> Signed-off-by: Volodymyr Mytnyk <redacted> --- net/sched/cls_api.c | 5 +++-- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)diff --git a/net/sched/cls_api.c b/net/sched/cls_api.c index d73b5c5514a9..327594cce554 100644 --- a/net/sched/cls_api.c +++ b/net/sched/cls_api.c@@ -563,8 +563,6 @@ static void __tcf_chain_put(struct tcf_chain *chain, bool by_act,if (refcnt - chain->action_refcnt == 0 && !by_act) { tc_chain_notify_delete(tmplt_ops, tmplt_priv, chain->index, block, NULL, 0, 0, false); - /* Last reference to chain, no need to lock. */ - chain->flushing = false; } if (refcnt == 0)@@ -615,6 +613,9 @@ static void tcf_chain_flush(struct tcf_chain *chain, bool rtnl_held)tcf_proto_put(tp, rtnl_held, NULL); tp = tp_next; } + + /* Last reference to chain, no need to lock. */But after moving the code block here you can no longer guarantee that this is the last reference, right?quoted
+ chain->flushing = false;Resetting the flag here is probably correct for actual flush use-case (e.g. RTM_DELTFILTER message with prio==0), but can cause undesired side-effects for other users of tcf_chain_flush(). Consider following interaction between new filter creation and explicit chain deletion that also uses tcf_chanin_flush(): RTM_DELCHAIN RTM_NEWTFILTER + + | | | +----------v-----------+ | | | | | __tcf_block_find | | | | | +----------+-----------+ | | | | | +----------v------------+ | | | | | tcf_chain_get | | | | | +----------+------------+ | | +--------v--------+ | | | | | tcf_chain_flush | | | | | +--------+--------+ | | | | +----------v------------+ | | | | | tcf_chain_tp_find | | | | | +----------+------------+ | | | |tp==NULL | |chain->flushing==false | | | +---------------v----------------+ | | | | | tp_created = 1 | | | tcf_chain_tp_insert_unique | | | | | +---------------+----------------+ | | | | +---------------v-----------------+ | | | | |tcf_chain_put_explicitly_created | | | | | +---------------+-----------------+ | | | v v In this example tc_new_tfilter() holds chain reference during flush. If flush finishes concurrently before the check for chain->flushing, the chain reference counter will not reach 0 (because new filter creation code will not back off and release the reference). In the described example tc_chain_notify_delete() will not be called which will confuse any userland code that expects to receive delete chain notification after sending RTM_DELCHAIN message. With these considerations I can propose following approach to fix the issue: 1. Extend tcf_chain_flush() with additional boolean argument and only call it with 'true' value from tc_del_tfilter(). (or create helper function that calls tcf_chain_flush() and then resets chain->flushing flag) 2. Reset the 'flushing' flag when new argument is true. 3. Wrap the 'flushing' flag reset code in filter_chain_lock critical section.quoted
}