2023-12-18 08:43:57

by Zhang Yiqun

Subject: [PATCH] xfrm: Use spin_lock_bh() in xfrm_input()

This patch is to change spin_lock() into spin_lock_bh(), which can
disable bottem half in calling. If we leave this as spin_lock(),
it may stuck in a deadlock, because the callback in bottem half in
crypto driver will also call xfrm_input() again.

Signed-off-by: Zhang Yiqun <[email protected]>
---
net/xfrm/xfrm_input.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/xfrm/xfrm_input.c b/net/xfrm/xfrm_input.c
index bd4ce21d76d7..f4cd46d73b1e 100644
--- a/net/xfrm/xfrm_input.c
+++ b/net/xfrm/xfrm_input.c
@@ -581,7 +581,7 @@ int xfrm_input(struct sk_buff *skb, int nexthdr, __be32 spi, int encap_type)
}

lock:
- spin_lock(&x->lock);
+ spin_lock_bh(&x->lock);

if (unlikely(x->km.state != XFRM_STATE_VALID)) {
if (x->km.state == XFRM_STATE_ACQ)
@@ -607,7 +607,7 @@ int xfrm_input(struct sk_buff *skb, int nexthdr, __be32 spi, int encap_type)
goto drop_unlock;
}

- spin_unlock(&x->lock);
+ spin_unlock_bh(&x->lock);

if (xfrm_tunnel_check(skb, x, family)) {
XFRM_INC_STATS(net, LINUX_MIB_XFRMINSTATEMODEERROR);
--
2.17.1

2023-12-18 11:09:10

by Eric Dumazet

Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfrm: Use spin_lock_bh() in xfrm_input()

On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 9:43 AM Zhang Yiqun <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> This patch is to change spin_lock() into spin_lock_bh(), which can
> disable bottem half in calling. If we leave this as spin_lock(),
> it may stuck in a deadlock, because the callback in bottem half in
> crypto driver will also call xfrm_input() again.
>
> Signed-off-by: Zhang Yiqun <[email protected]>

When was the bug added ?
We need a FIxes: tag.

Also a stack trace to show the deadlock (or lockdep complaint ) would
be needed as well.

> ---
> net/xfrm/xfrm_input.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/xfrm/xfrm_input.c b/net/xfrm/xfrm_input.c
> index bd4ce21d76d7..f4cd46d73b1e 100644
> --- a/net/xfrm/xfrm_input.c
> +++ b/net/xfrm/xfrm_input.c
> @@ -581,7 +581,7 @@ int xfrm_input(struct sk_buff *skb, int nexthdr, __be32 spi, int encap_type)
> }
>
> lock:
> - spin_lock(&x->lock);
> + spin_lock_bh(&x->lock);
>
> if (unlikely(x->km.state != XFRM_STATE_VALID)) {
> if (x->km.state == XFRM_STATE_ACQ)
> @@ -607,7 +607,7 @@ int xfrm_input(struct sk_buff *skb, int nexthdr, __be32 spi, int encap_type)
> goto drop_unlock;
> }
>
> - spin_unlock(&x->lock);
> + spin_unlock_bh(&x->lock);
>
> if (xfrm_tunnel_check(skb, x, family)) {
> XFRM_INC_STATS(net, LINUX_MIB_XFRMINSTATEMODEERROR);

This patch is not correct anyway.
There are five places in xfrm_input() where x->lock is either locked
or unlocked.

Please tell us how this was tested.
Thanks.

2023-12-18 11:18:07

by Suman Ghosh

Subject: RE: [EXT] [PATCH] xfrm: Use spin_lock_bh() in xfrm_input()

>diff --git a/net/xfrm/xfrm_input.c b/net/xfrm/xfrm_input.c index
>bd4ce21d76d7..f4cd46d73b1e 100644
>--- a/net/xfrm/xfrm_input.c
>+++ b/net/xfrm/xfrm_input.c
>@@ -581,7 +581,7 @@ int xfrm_input(struct sk_buff *skb, int nexthdr,
>__be32 spi, int encap_type)
> }
>
> lock:
>- spin_lock(&x->lock);
>+ spin_lock_bh(&x->lock);
[Suman] Hi Zhang,
There is a spin_lock() after label "resume". Don't we need to change it there?
>

2023-12-18 11:24:56

by Steffen Klassert

Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfrm: Use spin_lock_bh() in xfrm_input()

On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 12:07:50PM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 9:43 AM Zhang Yiqun <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > This patch is to change spin_lock() into spin_lock_bh(), which can
> > disable bottem half in calling. If we leave this as spin_lock(),
> > it may stuck in a deadlock, because the callback in bottem half in
> > crypto driver will also call xfrm_input() again.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Zhang Yiqun <[email protected]>
>
> When was the bug added ?
> We need a FIxes: tag.

This looks more like a 'crypto driver' bug. xfrm_input() runs in
the RX path and therefore expects to run with BHs off.