Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20221102211350.625011-1-dima@arista.com> <20221102211350.625011-3-dima@arista.com>
 <CANn89iLbOikuG9+Tna9M0Gr-diF2vFpfMV8MDP8rBuN49+Mwrg@mail.gmail.com> <b053edbd-2dbd-f3f3-7f6c-c70d5b58a00d@arista.com>
In-Reply-To: <b053edbd-2dbd-f3f3-7f6c-c70d5b58a00d@arista.com>
From:   Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Date:   Thu, 3 Nov 2022 10:04:19 -0700
Message-ID: <CANn89i+2ZOaQwmJ9EBn7796byAn9=mQPyM_gzdchsWCy-_GrjQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] net/tcp: Disable TCP-MD5 static key on
 tcp_md5sig_info destruction
To:     Dmitry Safonov <dima@arista.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, David Ahern <dsahern@kernel.org>,
        Bob Gilligan <gilligan@arista.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454c46@gmail.com>,
        Francesco Ruggeri <fruggeri@arista.com>,
        Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
        Salam Noureddine <noureddine@arista.com>,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Nov 3, 2022 at 9:53 AM Dmitry Safonov <dima@arista.com> wrote:
>
> On 11/2/22 21:25, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 2, 2022 at 2:14 PM Dmitry Safonov <dima@arista.com> wrote:
> [..]
> >> @@ -337,11 +338,13 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(tcp_time_wait);
> >>  void tcp_twsk_destructor(struct sock *sk)
> >>  {
> >>  #ifdef CONFIG_TCP_MD5SIG
> >> -       if (static_branch_unlikely(&tcp_md5_needed)) {
> >> +       if (static_branch_unlikely(&tcp_md5_needed.key)) {
> >>                 struct tcp_timewait_sock *twsk = tcp_twsk(sk);
> >>
> >> -               if (twsk->tw_md5_key)
> >> +               if (twsk->tw_md5_key) {
> >
> > Orthogonal to this patch, but I wonder why we do not clear
> > twsk->tw_md5_key before kfree_rcu()
> >
> > It seems a lookup could catch the invalid pointer.
> >
> >>                         kfree_rcu(twsk->tw_md5_key, rcu);
> >> +                       static_branch_slow_dec_deferred(&tcp_md5_needed);
> >> +               }
> >>         }
>
> I looked into that, it seems tcp_twsk_destructor() is called from
> inet_twsk_free(), which is either called from:
> 1. inet_twsk_put(), protected by tw->tw_refcnt
> 2. sock_gen_put(), protected by the same sk->sk_refcnt
>
> So, in result, if I understand correctly, lookups should fail on ref
> counter check. Maybe I'm missing something, but clearing here seems not
> necessary?
>
> I can add rcu_assign_pointer() just in case the destruction path changes
> in v2 if you think it's worth it :-)

Agree, this seems fine.