lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Nov]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH net,stable v2] vhost: fix skb leak in handle_rx()
From
Date


On 2017年11月29日 23:31, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 09:23:24AM -0500,wexu@redhat.com wrote:
>> From: Wei Xu<wexu@redhat.com>
>>
>> Matthew found a roughly 40% tcp throughput regression with commit
>> c67df11f(vhost_net: try batch dequing from skb array) as discussed
>> in the following thread:
>> https://www.mail-archive.com/netdev@vger.kernel.org/msg187936.html
>>
>> Eventually we figured out that it was a skb leak in handle_rx()
>> when sending packets to the VM. This usually happens when a guest
>> can not drain out vq as fast as vhost fills in, afterwards it sets
>> off the traffic jam and leaks skb(s) which occurs as no headcount
>> to send on the vq from vhost side.
>>
>> This can be avoided by making sure we have got enough headcount
>> before actually consuming a skb from the batched rx array while
>> transmitting, which is simply done by moving checking the zero
>> headcount a bit ahead.
>>
>> Also strengthen the small possibility of leak in case of recvmsg()
>> fails by freeing the skb.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Wei Xu<wexu@redhat.com>
>> Reported-by: Matthew Rosato<mjrosato@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/vhost/net.c | 23 +++++++++++++----------
>> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>>
>> v2:
>> - add Matthew as the reporter, thanks matthew.
>> - moving zero headcount check ahead instead of defer consuming skb
>> due to jason and mst's comment.
>> - add freeing skb in favor of recvmsg() fails.
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/vhost/net.c b/drivers/vhost/net.c
>> index 8d626d7..e302e08 100644
>> --- a/drivers/vhost/net.c
>> +++ b/drivers/vhost/net.c
>> @@ -778,16 +778,6 @@ static void handle_rx(struct vhost_net *net)
>> /* On error, stop handling until the next kick. */
>> if (unlikely(headcount < 0))
>> goto out;
>> - if (nvq->rx_array)
>> - msg.msg_control = vhost_net_buf_consume(&nvq->rxq);
>> - /* On overrun, truncate and discard */
>> - if (unlikely(headcount > UIO_MAXIOV)) {
>> - iov_iter_init(&msg.msg_iter, READ, vq->iov, 1, 1);
>> - err = sock->ops->recvmsg(sock, &msg,
>> - 1, MSG_DONTWAIT | MSG_TRUNC);
>> - pr_debug("Discarded rx packet: len %zd\n", sock_len);
>> - continue;
>> - }
>> /* OK, now we need to know about added descriptors. */
>> if (!headcount) {
>> if (unlikely(vhost_enable_notify(&net->dev, vq))) {
>> @@ -800,6 +790,18 @@ static void handle_rx(struct vhost_net *net)
>> * they refilled. */
>> goto out;
>> }
>> + if (nvq->rx_array)
>> + msg.msg_control = vhost_net_buf_consume(&nvq->rxq);
>> + /* On overrun, truncate and discard */
>> + if (unlikely(headcount > UIO_MAXIOV)) {
>> + iov_iter_init(&msg.msg_iter, READ, vq->iov, 1, 1);
>> + err = sock->ops->recvmsg(sock, &msg,
>> + 1, MSG_DONTWAIT | MSG_TRUNC);
>> + if (unlikely(err != 1))
> Why 1? How is receiving 1 byte special or even possible?
> Also, I wouldn't put an unlikely here. It's all error handling code anyway.
>
>> + kfree_skb((struct sk_buff *)msg.msg_control);
> You do not need a cast here.
> Also, is it really safe to refer to msg_control here?
> I'd rather keep a copy of the skb pointer and use it than assume
> caller did not change it. But also see below.
>
>> + pr_debug("Discarded rx packet: len %zd\n", sock_len);
>> + continue;
>> + }
>> /* We don't need to be notified again. */
>> iov_iter_init(&msg.msg_iter, READ, vq->iov, in, vhost_len);
>> fixup = msg.msg_iter;
>> @@ -818,6 +820,7 @@ static void handle_rx(struct vhost_net *net)
>> pr_debug("Discarded rx packet: "
>> " len %d, expected %zd\n", err, sock_len);
>> vhost_discard_vq_desc(vq, headcount);
>> + kfree_skb((struct sk_buff *)msg.msg_control);
> You do not need a cast here.
>
> Also, we have
>
> ret = tun_put_user(tun, tfile, skb, to);
> if (unlikely(ret < 0))
> kfree_skb(skb);
> else
> consume_skb(skb);
>
> return ret;
>
> So it looks like recvmsg actually always consumes the skb.
> So I was wrong when I said you need to kfree it after
> recv msg, and your original patch was good.
>
> Jason, what do you think?
>

tun_recvmsg() has the following check:

static int tun_recvmsg(struct socket *sock, struct msghdr *m, size_t
total_len,
               int flags)
{
    struct tun_file *tfile = container_of(sock, struct tun_file, socket);
    struct tun_struct *tun = __tun_get(tfile);
    int ret;

    if (!tun)
        return -EBADFD;

    if (flags & ~(MSG_DONTWAIT|MSG_TRUNC|MSG_ERRQUEUE)) {
        ret = -EINVAL;
        goto out;
    }

And tun_do_read() has:

    if (!iov_iter_count(to))
        return 0;

So I think we need free skb in those cases.

Thanks

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-11-30 03:46    [W:0.062 / U:0.476 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site