From: Volodymyr Mytnyk <[email protected]>
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")
Co-developed-by: Serhiy Boiko <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Serhiy Boiko <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Volodymyr Mytnyk <[email protected]>
---
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. */
+ chain->flushing = false;
}
static int tcf_block_setup(struct tcf_block *block,
--
2.7.4
Hi Volodymyr,
On Sun 10 Oct 2021 at 09:55, Volodymyr Mytnyk <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: Volodymyr Mytnyk <[email protected]>
>
> 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!
>
> Co-developed-by: Serhiy Boiko <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Serhiy Boiko <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Volodymyr Mytnyk <[email protected]>
> ---
> 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?
> + 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.
> }
>
> static int tcf_block_setup(struct tcf_block *block,
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 <[email protected]> wrote:
> > From: Volodymyr Mytnyk <[email protected]>
> >
> > 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!
>
> >
> > Co-developed-by: Serhiy Boiko <[email protected]>
> > Signed-off-by: Serhiy Boiko <[email protected]>
> > Signed-off-by: Volodymyr Mytnyk <[email protected]>
> > ---
> >? 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?
>
> > +???? 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.
>
> >? }
> >?
>