lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  linux-cve-announce  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Wed, 8 Jan 2014 21:23:43 +0100
From:	Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
To:	Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
Cc:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	Andrey Vagin <avagin@...nvz.org>,
	netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, netfilter@...r.kernel.org,
	coreteam@...filter.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, vvs@...nvz.org,
	Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>,
	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>,
	Jozsef Kadlecsik <kadlec@...ckhole.kfki.hu>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] netfilter: nf_conntrack: fix RCU race in
 nf_conntrack_find_get

Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de> wrote:
> Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> > > The confirmed bit should always be set here.
> > 
> > So why are you testing it ?
> 
> To detect ct object recycling when tuple is identical.
> 
> This is my understanding of how we can end up with two
> cpus thinking they have exclusive ownership of the same ct:
> 
> A cpu0: starts lookup: find ct for tuple t
> B cpu1: starts lookup: find ct for tuple t
> C cpu0: finds ct c for tuple t, no refcnt taken yet
>   cpu1: finds ct c for tuple t, no refcnt taken yet
>    cpu2: destroys ct c, removes from hash table, calls ->destroy function
> D cpu0: tries to increment refcnt; fails since its 0: lookup ends
> E cpu0: allocates a new ct object since no acceptable ct was found for t
> F cpu0: allocator gives us just-freed ct c
> G cpu0: initialises ct, sets refcnt to 1
> H cpu0: adds extensions, ct object is put on unconfirmed list and
>         assigned to skb->nfct
> I cpu0: skb continues through network stack
> J cpu1: tries to increment refcnt, ok
> K cpu1: checks if ct matches requested tuple t: it does
> L cpu0: sets refcnt conntrack tuple, allocates extensions, etc.
    ^^^^
>   cpu1: sets skb->nfct to ct, skb continues through network stack

sorry, for that brain fart  This should only say
  L cpu1: sets skb->nfct to ct, skb continues...
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ