diff mbox

[net-next,2/3] vsock: fix vsock_dequeue/enqueue_accept race

Message ID KL1P15301MB00082249964D8EF1BAA48790BF8D0@KL1P15301MB0008.APCP153.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM
State Changes Requested, archived
Delegated to: David Miller
Headers show

Commit Message

Dexuan Cui Aug. 15, 2017, 10:15 p.m. UTC 
With the current code, when vsock_dequeue_accept() is removing a sock
from the list, nothing prevents vsock_enqueue_accept() from adding a new
sock into the list concurrently. We should add a lock to protect the list.

Signed-off-by: Dexuan Cui <decui@microsoft.com>
Cc: Andy King <acking@vmware.com>
Cc: Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@vmware.com>
Cc: George Zhang <georgezhang@vmware.com>
Cc: Jorgen Hansen <jhansen@vmware.com>
Cc: Reilly Grant <grantr@vmware.com>
Cc: Asias He <asias@redhat.com>
Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>
Cc: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
Cc: Cathy Avery <cavery@redhat.com>
Cc: K. Y. Srinivasan <kys@microsoft.com>
Cc: Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@microsoft.com>
Cc: Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@microsoft.com>
---
 net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c | 7 +++++++
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)

Comments

Jorgen Hansen Aug. 17, 2017, 12:43 p.m. UTC | #1 
> On Aug 16, 2017, at 12:15 AM, Dexuan Cui <decui@microsoft.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> With the current code, when vsock_dequeue_accept() is removing a sock
> from the list, nothing prevents vsock_enqueue_accept() from adding a new
> sock into the list concurrently. We should add a lock to protect the list.
> 

For the VMCI socket transport, we always lock the sockets before calling into vsock_enqueue_accept and af_vsock.c locks the socket before calling vsock_dequeue_accept, so from our point of view these operations are already protected, but with finer granularity than a single global lock. As far as I can see, the virtio transport also locks the socket before calling vsock_enqueue_accept, so they should be fine with the current version as well, but Stefan can comment on that.

Thanks,
Jorgen
Stefan Hajnoczi Aug. 17, 2017, 2:05 p.m. UTC | #2 
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:15:39PM +0000, Dexuan Cui wrote:
> With the current code, when vsock_dequeue_accept() is removing a sock
> from the list, nothing prevents vsock_enqueue_accept() from adding a new
> sock into the list concurrently. We should add a lock to protect the list.

The listener sock is locked, preventing concurrent modification.  I have
checked both the virtio and vmci transports.  Can you post an example
where the listener sock isn't locked?

Stefan
Dexuan Cui Aug. 18, 2017, 12:37 a.m. UTC | #3 
> > On Aug 16, 2017, at 12:15 AM, Dexuan Cui <decui@microsoft.com> wrote:
> > With the current code, when vsock_dequeue_accept() is removing a sock
> > from the list, nothing prevents vsock_enqueue_accept() from adding a new
> > sock into the list concurrently. We should add a lock to protect the list.
> 
> For the VMCI socket transport, we always lock the sockets before calling into
> vsock_enqueue_accept and af_vsock.c locks the socket before calling
> vsock_dequeue_accept, so from our point of view these operations are already
> protected, but with finer granularity than a single global lock. As far as I can see,
> the virtio transport also locks the socket before calling vsock_enqueue_accept,
> so they should be fine with the current version as well, but Stefan can comment
> on that.
> 
> Jorgen

Hi Jorgen,
Thanks, you're correct.
Please ignore this patch. I'll update the hv_sock driver to add proper 
lock_sock()/relesae_sock().

Thanks,
-- Dexuan
Dexuan Cui Aug. 18, 2017, 9:13 p.m. UTC | #4 
> From: Stefan Hajnoczi [mailto:stefanha@redhat.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2017 07:06
> 
> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:15:39PM +0000, Dexuan Cui wrote:
> > With the current code, when vsock_dequeue_accept() is removing a sock
> > from the list, nothing prevents vsock_enqueue_accept() from adding a new
> > sock into the list concurrently. We should add a lock to protect the list.
> 
> The listener sock is locked, preventing concurrent modification.  I have
> checked both the virtio and vmci transports.  Can you post an example
> where the listener sock isn't locked?
> 
> Stefan
Sorry, I was not careful when checking the vmci code. 
Please ignore the patch.

Now I realized the expectation is that the individual transport drivers should
do the locking for vsock_enqueue_accept(), but for vsock_dequeue_accept(),
the locking is done by the common vsock driver.

Thanks,
-- Dexuan
diff mbox

Patch

diff --git a/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c b/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c
index dfc8c51e..b7b2c66 100644
--- a/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c
+++ b/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c
@@ -126,6 +126,7 @@  static struct proto vsock_proto = {
 
 static const struct vsock_transport *transport;
 static DEFINE_MUTEX(vsock_register_mutex);
+static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(vsock_accept_queue_lock);
 
 /**** EXPORTS ****/
 
@@ -406,7 +407,10 @@  void vsock_enqueue_accept(struct sock *listener, struct sock *connected)
 
 	sock_hold(connected);
 	sock_hold(listener);
+
+	spin_lock(&vsock_accept_queue_lock);
 	list_add_tail(&vconnected->accept_queue, &vlistener->accept_queue);
+	spin_unlock(&vsock_accept_queue_lock);
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(vsock_enqueue_accept);
 
@@ -423,7 +427,10 @@  static struct sock *vsock_dequeue_accept(struct sock *listener)
 	vconnected = list_entry(vlistener->accept_queue.next,
 				struct vsock_sock, accept_queue);
 
+	spin_lock(&vsock_accept_queue_lock);
 	list_del_init(&vconnected->accept_queue);
+	spin_unlock(&vsock_accept_queue_lock);
+
 	sock_put(listener);
 	/* The caller will need a reference on the connected socket so we let
 	 * it call sock_put().