Re: [PATCH net v2 0/3] net/iucv: fix the recvmsg window update
Alexandra Winter <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | org.kernel.vger.linux-s390,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel,org.kernel.vger.netdev |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 21.08.26 13:17, Bryam Vargas via B4 Relay wrote: > v2 answers Jakub's reviews of v1 with changes rather than replies. > > 1/3 keeps its hunk and states the impact properly. SO_MSGLIMIT accepts 1, > which makes msglimit / 2 zero, and msg_recv never leaves zero on a classic > socket, so the NULL read is one recvmsg() away for an unprivileged process > on a socket of its own. With relocate_lowcore it faults. > > Its Fixes: tag was wrong as well. The unconditional send does date to > 3881ac441f64, but iucv_send_ctrl() sized the skb with a constant ETH_HLEN > until 238965b71b96, so before that it just returned -ENODEV. Backport > window is v5.3, not v3.1. > > 2/3 is new. v1 admitted it widened the msg_recv race and left it open, > which isn't good enough under Cc: stable. afiucv_hs_send() samples the > counter and settles it after dev_queue_xmit(); sendmsg reaches that under > lock_sock() and recvmsg reaches it under no socket lock, so the two don't > exclude each other and both can subtract the same value. Negative counter, > WARN_ON, and the same credit advertised twice to a peer whose > afiucv_hs_callback_win() subtracts the wire value from msg_sent unchecked. > > Taking the socket lock around the deferred send would close it too, since > recvmsg is the only unlocked side. I didn't: recvmsg has never held that > lock, and making it do so changes the receive path for every caller. That > belongs in the locking rework, not in a stable fix. > > The claim sits after the last error exit rather than in the header build, > so the counter reads zero only while the transmit is in flight, and a > concurrent sender isn't talked out of its own update. > > 3/3 is v1's patch, and it must not be applied without 2/3: hoisting the > send out of message_q.lock drops the serialisation that lock gave two > concurrent recvmsg(). Backported alone it recreates what 2/3 fixes. Both > changelogs say so. > > Litmus test under LKMM: the counter reaches -2 before 2/3 and cannot after. > No hardware run; I have no IBM Z, and CONFIG_AFIUCV is s390-only. > > The unlocked hs_dev and sk_shutdown window, the unbounded backlog_skb_q and > the WARN_ON a flooding peer can reach are pre-existing and wider than this > series. They belong with the locking rework Alexandra has open. > > Thanks for the reviews. > > --- > Bryam Vargas (3): > net/iucv: only send the window update on HiperSockets sockets > net/iucv: claim the receive credit atomically > net/iucv: send the window update outside message_q.lock > > net/iucv/af_iucv.c | 42 +++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------- > 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-) > --- > base-commit: 746fc0787f616da418ffc04a110296fe95d53491 > change-id: 20260821-b4-disp-3a6e8695-c1f4a6069169 > > Best regards, > -- > Bryam Vargas <[email protected]> > > > Thank you for the fixes Bryam. I have reviewed them and would technically give an R-b to all three. However I propose to send them again as one single patch. They are really about the same subject: iucv->msg_recv handling and even have a dependency, as you rightfully noted. It will be much easier to proceed and to backport them, if it is only one patch. I know it's a tradeoff, but I think we will do ourselves and the upstream maintainers a favor, if we send not too small fragments of fixes.