On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 01:18:25PM +0800, Marek Lindner wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > Haven't found any, but
> >
> > * you do an awful lot of GFP_ATOMIC allocations and those can and
> > do fail from time to time. What's worse, you ignore some of those
> > failures - e.g. failing allocation in orig_hash_{add,del}_if() will be
> > ignored by the caller. I haven't looked into that code enough to tell
> > if it could be exploited, but I really don't like the look of it...
>
> other GFP_* allocations can't fail ?
> This whole resizing isn't escpecially beautiful and asks for some love.
Other GFP_* allocations fail only when system is in a really lousy state -
killing processes, etc. GFP_ATOMIC can fail in much milder conditions;
note that they can't e.g. swap a page out or write a dirty page out and
free it, etc. _Any_ allocation failures need to be dealt with, of course,
but with GFP_ATOMIC ones failures are just a fact of life - it's not even
an emergency situation.
> > * orig_node_add_if() leaves junk in added array elements. You do
> > kmalloc() followed by memcpy(), but leave the last element uninitialized.
> > May be safe if you assign it soon enough, but I'd suggest checking that.
>
> Replacing kmalloc() with kzalloc() should do, right ?
*shrug*
That would do it, all right, but since you memcpy() over all but the last
element, I'd suggest cleaning that last element explicitly. Hell knows -
depends on how large your arrays are...
> > * orig_node_del_if() looks odd - it removes element #hard_iface->if_num
> > and shifts all subsequent ones down; then it renumbers interfaces to
> > match that. So far, so good, and there's even a plausible comment about
> > locking:
> > /* renumber remaining batman interfaces _inside_ of orig_hash_lock */
> > except that no such lock exists since commit d007260. What protects us
> > from the obvious race in there?
>
> Thanks for catching this. I agree that this is not properly protected. All
> functions accessing orig_node->bcast_own(_sum) use orig_node->ogm_cnt_lock to
> lock each other out. Obviously we would need a global lock for the interface
> renumbering which will be as ugly as the current array resizing is. You don't
> happen to have a good example of a resizable array at hand ?
Depends... How large those arrays realistically get? I would probably
consider allocating these guys separately and hashing them by orig_node/hwif
pair, but feasibility of that depends on how many of each do you expect to
see and how often do their numbers change...
