| Message ID | 5260911.ZuXsrgFD2R@positron.chronox.de (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
2017-10-29 21:39 GMT+01:00 Stephan Müller <smueller@chronox.de>: > Am Mittwoch, 25. Oktober 2017, 17:26:31 CET schrieb Romain Izard: > > Hi Romain, > > the patch below should cover the issue you see. Would you mind testing it? > > Thanks > Stephan > > ---8<--- > > The code paths protected by the socket-lock do not use or modify the > socket in a non-atomic fashion. The actions pertaining the socket do not > even need to be handled as an atomic operation. Thus, the socket-lock > can be safely ignored. > > This fixes a bug regarding scheduling in atomic as the callback function > may be invoked in interrupt context. > > Fixes: 2d97591ef43d0 ("crypto: af_alg - consolidation of duplicate code") > Reported-by: Romain Izard <romain.izard.pro@gmail.com> > Signed-off-by: Stephan Mueller <smueller@chronox.de> Tested-by: Romain Izard <romain.izard.pro@gmail.com> The issue observed with atmel-aes is not reproduced anymore. > --- > crypto/af_alg.c | 4 ---- > 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/crypto/af_alg.c b/crypto/af_alg.c > index 337cf382718e..a41f08642eee 100644 > --- a/crypto/af_alg.c > +++ b/crypto/af_alg.c > @@ -1063,8 +1063,6 @@ void af_alg_async_cb(struct crypto_async_request *_req, int err) > struct kiocb *iocb = areq->iocb; > unsigned int resultlen; > > - lock_sock(sk); > - > /* Buffer size written by crypto operation. */ > resultlen = areq->outlen; > > @@ -1073,8 +1071,6 @@ void af_alg_async_cb(struct crypto_async_request *_req, int err) > __sock_put(sk); > > iocb->ki_complete(iocb, err ? err : resultlen, 0); > - > - release_sock(sk); > } > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(af_alg_async_cb); > > -- > 2.13.6 > >
On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 09:39:30PM +0100, Stephan Müller wrote: > Am Mittwoch, 25. Oktober 2017, 17:26:31 CET schrieb Romain Izard: > > Hi Romain, > > the patch below should cover the issue you see. Would you mind testing it? > > Thanks > Stephan > > ---8<--- > > The code paths protected by the socket-lock do not use or modify the > socket in a non-atomic fashion. The actions pertaining the socket do not > even need to be handled as an atomic operation. Thus, the socket-lock > can be safely ignored. Are you sure about that? In particular is the callback function still sane without the socket lock if a concurrent recvmsg/sendmsg call is made? Your fixes header is wrong too as the locks weren't introduced in that commit, they just got moved around. Cheers,
Am Freitag, 3. November 2017, 14:20:16 CET schrieb Herbert Xu: Hi Herbert, > On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 09:39:30PM +0100, Stephan Müller wrote: > > Am Mittwoch, 25. Oktober 2017, 17:26:31 CET schrieb Romain Izard: > > > > Hi Romain, > > > > the patch below should cover the issue you see. Would you mind testing it? > > > > Thanks > > Stephan > > > > ---8<--- > > > > The code paths protected by the socket-lock do not use or modify the > > socket in a non-atomic fashion. The actions pertaining the socket do not > > even need to be handled as an atomic operation. Thus, the socket-lock > > can be safely ignored. > > Are you sure about that? In particular is the callback function still > sane without the socket lock if a concurrent recvmsg/sendmsg call is > made? resultlen receives its data from the async_request -> no socket af_alg_free_areq_sgls(areq) does not require a socket, but it uses the socket to find the data structures -> I do not see that the socket is operated on though. The socket will always be alive as the sk_refcnt is not yet decremented by __sock_put. sock_kfree_s uses an atomic operation __sock_put uses an atomic operation iocb->ki_complete does not use the socket Where would you think that the lock is needed? > > Your fixes header is wrong too as the locks weren't introduced in that > commit, they just got moved around. Neither the skcipher_async_cb nor aead_async_cb up to and including 4.13 contain any lock. Ciao Stephan
Am Freitag, 3. November 2017, 14:20:16 CET schrieb Herbert Xu: Hi Herbert, > > > > The code paths protected by the socket-lock do not use or modify the > > socket in a non-atomic fashion. The actions pertaining the socket do not > > even need to be handled as an atomic operation. Thus, the socket-lock > > can be safely ignored. > > Are you sure about that? In particular is the callback function still > sane without the socket lock if a concurrent recvmsg/sendmsg call is > made? I reviewed the code again and I cannot find a reason for keeping the lock. All we need to ensure is that the socket exists. This is ensured with the refcount of the socket released by __sock_put(). Would you mind helping me where you think the lock is needed. > > Your fixes header is wrong too as the locks weren't introduced in that > commit, they just got moved around. Correct, the initial introduction was in e870456d8e7c8d57c059ea479b5aadbb55ff4c3a (algif_skcipher) and d887c52d6ae43aeebd249b5f2f1333e60236aa60 (algif_aead) Thanks a lot. Ciao Stephan
On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 05:06:09PM +0100, Stephan Mueller wrote: > Am Freitag, 3. November 2017, 14:20:16 CET schrieb Herbert Xu: > > > Are you sure about that? In particular is the callback function still > > sane without the socket lock if a concurrent recvmsg/sendmsg call is > > made? > > I reviewed the code again and I cannot find a reason for keeping the lock. All > we need to ensure is that the socket exists. This is ensured with the refcount > of the socket released by __sock_put(). OK, I can't see why we need a lock there either. However, the call to __sock_put looks suspicious. Why isn't this using sock_put? Also the sock_hold on the caller side looks buggy. Surely it needs to be made before we even call the encrypt/decrypt functions rather than after it returns EINPROGRESS at which point it may well be too late? Cheers,
Am Dienstag, 7. November 2017, 06:22:35 CET schrieb Herbert Xu: Hi Herbert, > On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 05:06:09PM +0100, Stephan Mueller wrote: > > Am Freitag, 3. November 2017, 14:20:16 CET schrieb Herbert Xu: > > > Are you sure about that? In particular is the callback function still > > > sane without the socket lock if a concurrent recvmsg/sendmsg call is > > > made? > > > > I reviewed the code again and I cannot find a reason for keeping the lock. > > All we need to ensure is that the socket exists. This is ensured with the > > refcount of the socket released by __sock_put(). > > OK, I can't see why we need a lock there either. However, the call > to __sock_put looks suspicious. Why isn't this using sock_put? I simply ported the existing code from algif_aead over -- but I think you are right that sock_put is more appropriate. > > Also the sock_hold on the caller side looks buggy. Surely it needs > to be made before we even call the encrypt/decrypt functions rather > than after it returns EINPROGRESS at which point it may well be too > late? I would concur. The sock_hold would need to be moved from the EINPROGRESS conditional to before the AIO enc/dec operation is invoked. Where I am not fully sure is whether af_alg_async_cb is called in any case. I.e. when we invoke an AIO operation with a cipher that completes synchronously (e.g. AES-NI), is this callback triggered? Ciao Stephan
On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 07:19:32AM +0100, Stephan Müller wrote: > > Where I am not fully sure is whether af_alg_async_cb is called in any case. > I.e. when we invoke an AIO operation with a cipher that completes > synchronously (e.g. AES-NI), is this callback triggered? It's the same with any other callback in the crypto API. The completion function is called if the return value is EINPROGRESS or EBUSY. In fact the algif_aead/algif_skcipher code already frees the SG lists and areq on a sync return. So perhaps you can merge this with the completion function. Cheers,
diff --git a/crypto/af_alg.c b/crypto/af_alg.c index 337cf382718e..a41f08642eee 100644 --- a/crypto/af_alg.c +++ b/crypto/af_alg.c @@ -1063,8 +1063,6 @@ void af_alg_async_cb(struct crypto_async_request *_req, int err) struct kiocb *iocb = areq->iocb; unsigned int resultlen; - lock_sock(sk); - /* Buffer size written by crypto operation. */ resultlen = areq->outlen; @@ -1073,8 +1071,6 @@ void af_alg_async_cb(struct crypto_async_request *_req, int err) __sock_put(sk); iocb->ki_complete(iocb, err ? err : resultlen, 0); - - release_sock(sk); } EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(af_alg_async_cb);
Am Mittwoch, 25. Oktober 2017, 17:26:31 CET schrieb Romain Izard: Hi Romain, the patch below should cover the issue you see. Would you mind testing it? Thanks Stephan ---8<--- The code paths protected by the socket-lock do not use or modify the socket in a non-atomic fashion. The actions pertaining the socket do not even need to be handled as an atomic operation. Thus, the socket-lock can be safely ignored. This fixes a bug regarding scheduling in atomic as the callback function may be invoked in interrupt context. Fixes: 2d97591ef43d0 ("crypto: af_alg - consolidation of duplicate code") Reported-by: Romain Izard <romain.izard.pro@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Stephan Mueller <smueller@chronox.de> --- crypto/af_alg.c | 4 ---- 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)