diff mbox series

[RFC,net,v2] net: fix data-races around sk->sk_forward_alloc

Message ID 20241105080305.717508-1-wangliang74@huawei.com (mailing list archive)
State Superseded
Delegated to: Netdev Maintainers
Headers show
Series [RFC,net,v2] net: fix data-races around sk->sk_forward_alloc | expand

Checks

Context Check Description
netdev/series_format success Single patches do not need cover letters
netdev/tree_selection success Clearly marked for net
netdev/ynl success Generated files up to date; no warnings/errors; no diff in generated;
netdev/fixes_present success Fixes tag present in non-next series
netdev/header_inline success No static functions without inline keyword in header files
netdev/build_32bit success Errors and warnings before: 3 this patch: 3
netdev/build_tools success No tools touched, skip
netdev/cc_maintainers warning 1 maintainers not CCed: dccp@vger.kernel.org
netdev/build_clang success Errors and warnings before: 3 this patch: 3
netdev/verify_signedoff success Signed-off-by tag matches author and committer
netdev/deprecated_api success None detected
netdev/check_selftest success No net selftest shell script
netdev/verify_fixes success Fixes tag looks correct
netdev/build_allmodconfig_warn success Errors and warnings before: 6 this patch: 6
netdev/checkpatch success total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 checks, 24 lines checked
netdev/build_clang_rust success No Rust files in patch. Skipping build
netdev/kdoc success Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0
netdev/source_inline success Was 0 now: 0

Commit Message

Wang Liang Nov. 5, 2024, 8:03 a.m. UTC 
Syzkaller reported this warning:
 ------------[ cut here ]------------
 WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 16 at net/ipv4/af_inet.c:156 inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0
 Modules linked in:
 CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 16 Comm: ksoftirqd/0 Not tainted 6.12.0-rc5 #26
 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.15.0-1 04/01/2014
 RIP: 0010:inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0
 Code: 24 12 4c 89 e2 5b 48 c7 c7 98 ec bb 82 41 5c e9 d1 18 17 ff 4c 89 e6 5b 48 c7 c7 d0 ec bb 82 41 5c e9 bf 18 17 ff 0f 0b eb 83 <0f> 0b eb 97 0f 0b eb 87 0f 0b e9 68 ff ff ff 66 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00
 RSP: 0018:ffffc9000008bd90 EFLAGS: 00010206
 RAX: 0000000000000300 RBX: ffff88810b172a90 RCX: 0000000000000007
 RDX: 0000000000000002 RSI: 0000000000000300 RDI: ffff88810b172a00
 RBP: ffff88810b172a00 R08: ffff888104273c00 R09: 0000000000100007
 R10: 0000000000020000 R11: 0000000000000006 R12: ffff88810b172a00
 R13: 0000000000000004 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: ffff888237c31f78
 FS:  0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff888237c00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
 CS:  0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
 CR2: 00007ffc63fecac8 CR3: 000000000342e000 CR4: 00000000000006f0
 DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
 DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
 Call Trace:
  <TASK>
  ? __warn+0x88/0x130
  ? inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0
  ? report_bug+0x18e/0x1a0
  ? handle_bug+0x53/0x90
  ? exc_invalid_op+0x18/0x70
  ? asm_exc_invalid_op+0x1a/0x20
  ? inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0
  __sk_destruct+0x2a/0x200
  rcu_do_batch+0x1aa/0x530
  ? rcu_do_batch+0x13b/0x530
  rcu_core+0x159/0x2f0
  handle_softirqs+0xd3/0x2b0
  ? __pfx_smpboot_thread_fn+0x10/0x10
  run_ksoftirqd+0x25/0x30
  smpboot_thread_fn+0xdd/0x1d0
  kthread+0xd3/0x100
  ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10
  ret_from_fork+0x34/0x50
  ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10
  ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30
  </TASK>
 ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]---

Its possible that two threads call tcp_v6_do_rcv()/sk_forward_alloc_add()
concurrently when sk->sk_state == TCP_LISTEN with sk->sk_lock unlocked,
which triggers a data-race around sk->sk_forward_alloc:
tcp_v6_rcv
    tcp_v6_do_rcv
        skb_clone_and_charge_r
            sk_rmem_schedule
                __sk_mem_schedule
                    sk_forward_alloc_add()
            skb_set_owner_r
                sk_mem_charge
                    sk_forward_alloc_add()
        __kfree_skb
            skb_release_all
                skb_release_head_state
                    sock_rfree
                        sk_mem_uncharge
                            sk_forward_alloc_add()
                            sk_mem_reclaim
                                // set local var reclaimable
                                __sk_mem_reclaim
                                    sk_forward_alloc_add()

In this syzkaller testcase, two threads call
tcp_v6_do_rcv() with skb->truesize=768, the sk_forward_alloc changes like
this:
 (cpu 1)             | (cpu 2)             | sk_forward_alloc
 ...                 | ...                 | 0
 __sk_mem_schedule() |                     | +4096 = 4096
                     | __sk_mem_schedule() | +4096 = 8192
 sk_mem_charge()     |                     | -768  = 7424
                     | sk_mem_charge()     | -768  = 6656
 ...                 |    ...              |
 sk_mem_uncharge()   |                     | +768  = 7424
 reclaimable=7424    |                     |
                     | sk_mem_uncharge()   | +768  = 8192
                     | reclaimable=8192    |
 __sk_mem_reclaim()  |                     | -4096 = 4096
                     | __sk_mem_reclaim()  | -8192 = -4096 != 0

The skb_clone_and_charge_r() should not be called in tcp_v6_do_rcv() when
sk->sk_state is TCP_LISTEN, it happens later in tcp_v6_syn_recv_sock().
Fix the same issue in dccp_v6_do_rcv().

Suggested-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Fixes: e994b2f0fb92 ("tcp: do not lock listener to process SYN packets")
Signed-off-by: Wang Liang <wangliang74@huawei.com>
---
 net/dccp/ipv6.c     | 2 +-
 net/ipv6/tcp_ipv6.c | 4 +---
 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

Comments

Eric Dumazet Nov. 5, 2024, 9:52 a.m. UTC | #1 
On Tue, Nov 5, 2024 at 8:46 AM Wang Liang <wangliang74@huawei.com> wrote:
>
> Syzkaller reported this warning:
>  ------------[ cut here ]------------
>  WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 16 at net/ipv4/af_inet.c:156 inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0
>  Modules linked in:
>  CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 16 Comm: ksoftirqd/0 Not tainted 6.12.0-rc5 #26
>  Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.15.0-1 04/01/2014
>  RIP: 0010:inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0
>  Code: 24 12 4c 89 e2 5b 48 c7 c7 98 ec bb 82 41 5c e9 d1 18 17 ff 4c 89 e6 5b 48 c7 c7 d0 ec bb 82 41 5c e9 bf 18 17 ff 0f 0b eb 83 <0f> 0b eb 97 0f 0b eb 87 0f 0b e9 68 ff ff ff 66 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00
>  RSP: 0018:ffffc9000008bd90 EFLAGS: 00010206
>  RAX: 0000000000000300 RBX: ffff88810b172a90 RCX: 0000000000000007
>  RDX: 0000000000000002 RSI: 0000000000000300 RDI: ffff88810b172a00
>  RBP: ffff88810b172a00 R08: ffff888104273c00 R09: 0000000000100007
>  R10: 0000000000020000 R11: 0000000000000006 R12: ffff88810b172a00
>  R13: 0000000000000004 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: ffff888237c31f78
>  FS:  0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff888237c00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
>  CS:  0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
>  CR2: 00007ffc63fecac8 CR3: 000000000342e000 CR4: 00000000000006f0
>  DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
>  DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
>  Call Trace:
>   <TASK>
>   ? __warn+0x88/0x130
>   ? inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0
>   ? report_bug+0x18e/0x1a0
>   ? handle_bug+0x53/0x90
>   ? exc_invalid_op+0x18/0x70
>   ? asm_exc_invalid_op+0x1a/0x20
>   ? inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0
>   __sk_destruct+0x2a/0x200
>   rcu_do_batch+0x1aa/0x530
>   ? rcu_do_batch+0x13b/0x530
>   rcu_core+0x159/0x2f0
>   handle_softirqs+0xd3/0x2b0
>   ? __pfx_smpboot_thread_fn+0x10/0x10
>   run_ksoftirqd+0x25/0x30
>   smpboot_thread_fn+0xdd/0x1d0
>   kthread+0xd3/0x100
>   ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10
>   ret_from_fork+0x34/0x50
>   ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10
>   ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30
>   </TASK>
>  ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]---
>
> Its possible that two threads call tcp_v6_do_rcv()/sk_forward_alloc_add()
> concurrently when sk->sk_state == TCP_LISTEN with sk->sk_lock unlocked,
> which triggers a data-race around sk->sk_forward_alloc:
> tcp_v6_rcv
>     tcp_v6_do_rcv
>         skb_clone_and_charge_r
>             sk_rmem_schedule
>                 __sk_mem_schedule
>                     sk_forward_alloc_add()
>             skb_set_owner_r
>                 sk_mem_charge
>                     sk_forward_alloc_add()
>         __kfree_skb
>             skb_release_all
>                 skb_release_head_state
>                     sock_rfree
>                         sk_mem_uncharge
>                             sk_forward_alloc_add()
>                             sk_mem_reclaim
>                                 // set local var reclaimable
>                                 __sk_mem_reclaim
>                                     sk_forward_alloc_add()
>
> In this syzkaller testcase, two threads call
> tcp_v6_do_rcv() with skb->truesize=768, the sk_forward_alloc changes like
> this:
>  (cpu 1)             | (cpu 2)             | sk_forward_alloc
>  ...                 | ...                 | 0
>  __sk_mem_schedule() |                     | +4096 = 4096
>                      | __sk_mem_schedule() | +4096 = 8192
>  sk_mem_charge()     |                     | -768  = 7424
>                      | sk_mem_charge()     | -768  = 6656
>  ...                 |    ...              |
>  sk_mem_uncharge()   |                     | +768  = 7424
>  reclaimable=7424    |                     |
>                      | sk_mem_uncharge()   | +768  = 8192
>                      | reclaimable=8192    |
>  __sk_mem_reclaim()  |                     | -4096 = 4096
>                      | __sk_mem_reclaim()  | -8192 = -4096 != 0
>
> The skb_clone_and_charge_r() should not be called in tcp_v6_do_rcv() when
> sk->sk_state is TCP_LISTEN, it happens later in tcp_v6_syn_recv_sock().
> Fix the same issue in dccp_v6_do_rcv().
>
> Suggested-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
> Fixes: e994b2f0fb92 ("tcp: do not lock listener to process SYN packets")
> Signed-off-by: Wang Liang <wangliang74@huawei.com>

Reviewed-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>

Thanks.
Simon Horman Nov. 6, 2024, 3:14 p.m. UTC | #2 
On Tue, Nov 05, 2024 at 10:52:34AM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 5, 2024 at 8:46 AM Wang Liang <wangliang74@huawei.com> wrote:
> >
> > Syzkaller reported this warning:
> >  ------------[ cut here ]------------
> >  WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 16 at net/ipv4/af_inet.c:156 inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0
> >  Modules linked in:
> >  CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 16 Comm: ksoftirqd/0 Not tainted 6.12.0-rc5 #26
> >  Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.15.0-1 04/01/2014
> >  RIP: 0010:inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0
> >  Code: 24 12 4c 89 e2 5b 48 c7 c7 98 ec bb 82 41 5c e9 d1 18 17 ff 4c 89 e6 5b 48 c7 c7 d0 ec bb 82 41 5c e9 bf 18 17 ff 0f 0b eb 83 <0f> 0b eb 97 0f 0b eb 87 0f 0b e9 68 ff ff ff 66 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00
> >  RSP: 0018:ffffc9000008bd90 EFLAGS: 00010206
> >  RAX: 0000000000000300 RBX: ffff88810b172a90 RCX: 0000000000000007
> >  RDX: 0000000000000002 RSI: 0000000000000300 RDI: ffff88810b172a00
> >  RBP: ffff88810b172a00 R08: ffff888104273c00 R09: 0000000000100007
> >  R10: 0000000000020000 R11: 0000000000000006 R12: ffff88810b172a00
> >  R13: 0000000000000004 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: ffff888237c31f78
> >  FS:  0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff888237c00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
> >  CS:  0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
> >  CR2: 00007ffc63fecac8 CR3: 000000000342e000 CR4: 00000000000006f0
> >  DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
> >  DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
> >  Call Trace:
> >   <TASK>
> >   ? __warn+0x88/0x130
> >   ? inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0
> >   ? report_bug+0x18e/0x1a0
> >   ? handle_bug+0x53/0x90
> >   ? exc_invalid_op+0x18/0x70
> >   ? asm_exc_invalid_op+0x1a/0x20
> >   ? inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0
> >   __sk_destruct+0x2a/0x200
> >   rcu_do_batch+0x1aa/0x530
> >   ? rcu_do_batch+0x13b/0x530
> >   rcu_core+0x159/0x2f0
> >   handle_softirqs+0xd3/0x2b0
> >   ? __pfx_smpboot_thread_fn+0x10/0x10
> >   run_ksoftirqd+0x25/0x30
> >   smpboot_thread_fn+0xdd/0x1d0
> >   kthread+0xd3/0x100
> >   ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10
> >   ret_from_fork+0x34/0x50
> >   ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10
> >   ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30
> >   </TASK>
> >  ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]---
> >
> > Its possible that two threads call tcp_v6_do_rcv()/sk_forward_alloc_add()
> > concurrently when sk->sk_state == TCP_LISTEN with sk->sk_lock unlocked,
> > which triggers a data-race around sk->sk_forward_alloc:
> > tcp_v6_rcv
> >     tcp_v6_do_rcv
> >         skb_clone_and_charge_r
> >             sk_rmem_schedule
> >                 __sk_mem_schedule
> >                     sk_forward_alloc_add()
> >             skb_set_owner_r
> >                 sk_mem_charge
> >                     sk_forward_alloc_add()
> >         __kfree_skb
> >             skb_release_all
> >                 skb_release_head_state
> >                     sock_rfree
> >                         sk_mem_uncharge
> >                             sk_forward_alloc_add()
> >                             sk_mem_reclaim
> >                                 // set local var reclaimable
> >                                 __sk_mem_reclaim
> >                                     sk_forward_alloc_add()
> >
> > In this syzkaller testcase, two threads call
> > tcp_v6_do_rcv() with skb->truesize=768, the sk_forward_alloc changes like
> > this:
> >  (cpu 1)             | (cpu 2)             | sk_forward_alloc
> >  ...                 | ...                 | 0
> >  __sk_mem_schedule() |                     | +4096 = 4096
> >                      | __sk_mem_schedule() | +4096 = 8192
> >  sk_mem_charge()     |                     | -768  = 7424
> >                      | sk_mem_charge()     | -768  = 6656
> >  ...                 |    ...              |
> >  sk_mem_uncharge()   |                     | +768  = 7424
> >  reclaimable=7424    |                     |
> >                      | sk_mem_uncharge()   | +768  = 8192
> >                      | reclaimable=8192    |
> >  __sk_mem_reclaim()  |                     | -4096 = 4096
> >                      | __sk_mem_reclaim()  | -8192 = -4096 != 0
> >
> > The skb_clone_and_charge_r() should not be called in tcp_v6_do_rcv() when
> > sk->sk_state is TCP_LISTEN, it happens later in tcp_v6_syn_recv_sock().
> > Fix the same issue in dccp_v6_do_rcv().
> >
> > Suggested-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
> > Fixes: e994b2f0fb92 ("tcp: do not lock listener to process SYN packets")
> > Signed-off-by: Wang Liang <wangliang74@huawei.com>
> 
> Reviewed-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>

Hi Wang Liang,

Please post a non-RFC variant of this patch so it can be considered for
inclusion in net. And please include Eric's Reviewed-by tag.

Thanks!
Wang Liang Nov. 8, 2024, 1:34 a.m. UTC | #3 
在 2024/11/6 23:14, Simon Horman 写道:
> On Tue, Nov 05, 2024 at 10:52:34AM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 5, 2024 at 8:46 AM Wang Liang <wangliang74@huawei.com> wrote:
>>> Syzkaller reported this warning:
>>>   ------------[ cut here ]------------
>>>   WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 16 at net/ipv4/af_inet.c:156 inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0
>>>   Modules linked in:
>>>   CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 16 Comm: ksoftirqd/0 Not tainted 6.12.0-rc5 #26
>>>   Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.15.0-1 04/01/2014
>>>   RIP: 0010:inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0
>>>   Code: 24 12 4c 89 e2 5b 48 c7 c7 98 ec bb 82 41 5c e9 d1 18 17 ff 4c 89 e6 5b 48 c7 c7 d0 ec bb 82 41 5c e9 bf 18 17 ff 0f 0b eb 83 <0f> 0b eb 97 0f 0b eb 87 0f 0b e9 68 ff ff ff 66 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00
>>>   RSP: 0018:ffffc9000008bd90 EFLAGS: 00010206
>>>   RAX: 0000000000000300 RBX: ffff88810b172a90 RCX: 0000000000000007
>>>   RDX: 0000000000000002 RSI: 0000000000000300 RDI: ffff88810b172a00
>>>   RBP: ffff88810b172a00 R08: ffff888104273c00 R09: 0000000000100007
>>>   R10: 0000000000020000 R11: 0000000000000006 R12: ffff88810b172a00
>>>   R13: 0000000000000004 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: ffff888237c31f78
>>>   FS:  0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff888237c00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
>>>   CS:  0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
>>>   CR2: 00007ffc63fecac8 CR3: 000000000342e000 CR4: 00000000000006f0
>>>   DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
>>>   DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
>>>   Call Trace:
>>>    <TASK>
>>>    ? __warn+0x88/0x130
>>>    ? inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0
>>>    ? report_bug+0x18e/0x1a0
>>>    ? handle_bug+0x53/0x90
>>>    ? exc_invalid_op+0x18/0x70
>>>    ? asm_exc_invalid_op+0x1a/0x20
>>>    ? inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0
>>>    __sk_destruct+0x2a/0x200
>>>    rcu_do_batch+0x1aa/0x530
>>>    ? rcu_do_batch+0x13b/0x530
>>>    rcu_core+0x159/0x2f0
>>>    handle_softirqs+0xd3/0x2b0
>>>    ? __pfx_smpboot_thread_fn+0x10/0x10
>>>    run_ksoftirqd+0x25/0x30
>>>    smpboot_thread_fn+0xdd/0x1d0
>>>    kthread+0xd3/0x100
>>>    ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10
>>>    ret_from_fork+0x34/0x50
>>>    ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10
>>>    ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30
>>>    </TASK>
>>>   ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]---
>>>
>>> Its possible that two threads call tcp_v6_do_rcv()/sk_forward_alloc_add()
>>> concurrently when sk->sk_state == TCP_LISTEN with sk->sk_lock unlocked,
>>> which triggers a data-race around sk->sk_forward_alloc:
>>> tcp_v6_rcv
>>>      tcp_v6_do_rcv
>>>          skb_clone_and_charge_r
>>>              sk_rmem_schedule
>>>                  __sk_mem_schedule
>>>                      sk_forward_alloc_add()
>>>              skb_set_owner_r
>>>                  sk_mem_charge
>>>                      sk_forward_alloc_add()
>>>          __kfree_skb
>>>              skb_release_all
>>>                  skb_release_head_state
>>>                      sock_rfree
>>>                          sk_mem_uncharge
>>>                              sk_forward_alloc_add()
>>>                              sk_mem_reclaim
>>>                                  // set local var reclaimable
>>>                                  __sk_mem_reclaim
>>>                                      sk_forward_alloc_add()
>>>
>>> In this syzkaller testcase, two threads call
>>> tcp_v6_do_rcv() with skb->truesize=768, the sk_forward_alloc changes like
>>> this:
>>>   (cpu 1)             | (cpu 2)             | sk_forward_alloc
>>>   ...                 | ...                 | 0
>>>   __sk_mem_schedule() |                     | +4096 = 4096
>>>                       | __sk_mem_schedule() | +4096 = 8192
>>>   sk_mem_charge()     |                     | -768  = 7424
>>>                       | sk_mem_charge()     | -768  = 6656
>>>   ...                 |    ...              |
>>>   sk_mem_uncharge()   |                     | +768  = 7424
>>>   reclaimable=7424    |                     |
>>>                       | sk_mem_uncharge()   | +768  = 8192
>>>                       | reclaimable=8192    |
>>>   __sk_mem_reclaim()  |                     | -4096 = 4096
>>>                       | __sk_mem_reclaim()  | -8192 = -4096 != 0
>>>
>>> The skb_clone_and_charge_r() should not be called in tcp_v6_do_rcv() when
>>> sk->sk_state is TCP_LISTEN, it happens later in tcp_v6_syn_recv_sock().
>>> Fix the same issue in dccp_v6_do_rcv().
>>>
>>> Suggested-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
>>> Fixes: e994b2f0fb92 ("tcp: do not lock listener to process SYN packets")
>>> Signed-off-by: Wang Liang <wangliang74@huawei.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
> Hi Wang Liang,
>
> Please post a non-RFC variant of this patch so it can be considered for
> inclusion in net. And please include Eric's Reviewed-by tag.
>
> Thanks!


Thanks very much for your suggestion!

I have send the patch("[PATCH net] net: fix data-races around 
sk->sk_forward_alloc") with Reviewed-by tag, and remove the RFC.

Please check it.
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/net/dccp/ipv6.c b/net/dccp/ipv6.c
index da5dba120bc9..d6649246188d 100644
--- a/net/dccp/ipv6.c
+++ b/net/dccp/ipv6.c
@@ -618,7 +618,7 @@  static int dccp_v6_do_rcv(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb)
 	   by tcp. Feel free to propose better solution.
 					       --ANK (980728)
 	 */
-	if (np->rxopt.all)
+	if (np->rxopt.all && sk->sk_state != DCCP_LISTEN)
 		opt_skb = skb_clone_and_charge_r(skb, sk);
 
 	if (sk->sk_state == DCCP_OPEN) { /* Fast path */
diff --git a/net/ipv6/tcp_ipv6.c b/net/ipv6/tcp_ipv6.c
index d71ab4e1efe1..c9de5ef8f267 100644
--- a/net/ipv6/tcp_ipv6.c
+++ b/net/ipv6/tcp_ipv6.c
@@ -1618,7 +1618,7 @@  int tcp_v6_do_rcv(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb)
 	   by tcp. Feel free to propose better solution.
 					       --ANK (980728)
 	 */
-	if (np->rxopt.all)
+	if (np->rxopt.all && sk->sk_state != TCP_LISTEN)
 		opt_skb = skb_clone_and_charge_r(skb, sk);
 
 	if (sk->sk_state == TCP_ESTABLISHED) { /* Fast path */
@@ -1656,8 +1656,6 @@  int tcp_v6_do_rcv(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb)
 				if (reason)
 					goto reset;
 			}
-			if (opt_skb)
-				__kfree_skb(opt_skb);
 			return 0;
 		}
 	} else