OpenVZ Forum


Home » Mailing lists » Devel » [NETLINK] Don't attach callback to a going-away netlink socket
Re: [NETLINK] Don't attach callback to a going-away netlink socket [message #12151 is a reply to message #12149] Wed, 18 April 2007 09:07 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Evgeniy Polyakov is currently offline  Evgeniy Polyakov
Messages: 11
Registered: November 2006
Junior Member
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 10:50:42AM +0200, Patrick McHardy (kaber@trash.net) wrote:
> >>It already does (netlink_destroy_callback), but that doesn't help
> >>with this race though since without this patch we don't enter the
> >>error path.
> >
> > I thought that with releasing a socket, which will have a callback
> > attached only results in a leak of the callback? In that case we can
> > just free it in dump() just like it is done in no-error path already.
> > Or do I miss something additional?
>
> That would only work if there is nothing to dump (cb->dump returns 0).
> Otherwise it is not freed.

That is what I referred to as error path. Btw, with positive return
value we end up in subsequent call to input which will free callback
under lock as expected.

I do not object against the patch, just want to make a clear vision about
dumps - if callback is allocated to be used in dump only, then we could
just free it there without passing to next round.

> >>The problem is asynchronous processing of the dump request in the
> >>context of a different process. Process requests a dump, message
> >>is queued and process returns from sendmsg since some other process
> >>is already processing the queue. Then the process closes the socket,
> >>resulting in netlink_release being called. When the dump request
> >>is finally processed the race Pavel described might happen. This
> >>can only happen for netlink families that use mutex_try_lock for
> >>queue processing of course.
> >
> >
> > Doesn't it called from ->sk_data_ready() which is synchronous with
> > respect to sendmsg, not sure about conntrack though, but it looks so?
>
>
> Yes, but for kernel sockets we end up calling the input function,
> which when mutex_trylock is used returns immediately when some
> other process is already processing the queue, so the requesting
> process might close the socket before the request is processed.

So far it is only netfilter and gennetlink, we would see huge dump
from netlink_sock_destruct.
Anyway, that is possible situation, thanks for clearing this up.

--
Evgeniy Polyakov
 
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: [PATCH] Invalid return value of execve() resulting in oopses
Next Topic: [PATCH] Rework dev_base via list_head (v2)
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Tue Aug 26 10:58:41 GMT 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.08677 seconds