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;
Date:   Wed, 14 Jun 2023 23:17:14 +0300
From:   Fedor Pchelkin <pchelkin@ispras.ru>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Cc:     Sabrina Dubroca <sd@queasysnail.net>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>, Raed Salem <raeds@nvidia.com>,
        Lior Nahmanson <liorna@nvidia.com>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@nvidia.com>,
        Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@stressinduktion.org>,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Alexey Khoroshilov <khoroshilov@ispras.ru>,
        lvc-project@linuxtesting.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: macsec: fix double free of percpu stats
Message-ID: <20230614201714.lgwpk4wyojribbyj@fpc>
References: <20230613192220.159407-1-pchelkin@ispras.ru>
 <20230613200150.361bc462@kernel.org>
 <ZImx5pp98OSNnv4I@hog>
 <20230614090126.149049b1@kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230614090126.149049b1@kernel.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 09:01:26AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jun 2023 14:26:14 +0200 Sabrina Dubroca wrote:
> > > What prevents the device from being opened and used before
> > > macsec_add_dev() has finished? I think we need a fix which 
> > > would move this code before register_netdev(), instead :(  
> > 
> > Can the device be opened in parallel? We're under rtnl here.
> > 
> > If we want to move that code, then we'll also have to move the
> > eth_hw_addr_inherit call that's currently in macsec's ndo_init: in
> > case the user didn't give an SCI, we have to make it up based on the
> > device's mac address (dev_to_sci(dev, ...)), whether it's set by the
> > user or inherited. I can't remember if I had a good reason to put the
> > inherit in ndo_init.
> 
> Ah, you're right, this is a link creation path.

My reply probably won't give any new information now but if the code of
macsec_add_dev() and the parts from ndo_init it depends on which Sabrina
mentioned would be moved before registering netdev then the problem will
go away on its own.

Is it worth moving that code if rtnl_lock is held? Maybe it will be more
persistent to initialize the device for as maximum as possible before
calling register_netdevice()? Overall, it all depends on the reasons why
the code was implemented so initially.