linux-kernel - [PATCH AUTOSEL for 4.9 105/293] fib_rules: Resolve goto rules target on delete

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:   Mon, 9 Apr 2018 00:24:15 +0000
From:   Sasha Levin <Alexander.Levin@...rosoft.com>
To:     "stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC:     Serhey Popovych <serhe.popovych@...il.com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Sasha Levin <Alexander.Levin@...rosoft.com>
Subject: [PATCH AUTOSEL for 4.9 105/293] fib_rules: Resolve goto rules target
 on delete

From: Serhey Popovych <serhe.popovych@...il.com>

[ Upstream commit bdaf32c3ced3d111b692f0af585f880f82d686c5 ]

We should avoid marking goto rules unresolved when their
target is actually reachable after rule deletion.

Consolder following sample scenario:

  # ip -4 ru sh
  0:      from all lookup local
  32000:  from all goto 32100
  32100:  from all lookup main
  32100:  from all lookup default
  32766:  from all lookup main
  32767:  from all lookup default

  # ip -4 ru del pref 32100 table main
  # ip -4 ru sh
  0:      from all lookup local
  32000:  from all goto 32100 [unresolved]
  32100:  from all lookup default
  32766:  from all lookup main
  32767:  from all lookup default

After removal of first rule with preference 32100 we
mark all goto rules as unreachable, even when rule with
same preference as removed one still present.

Check if next rule with same preference is available
and make all rules with goto action pointing to it.

Signed-off-by: Serhey Popovych <serhe.popovych@...il.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <alexander.levin@...rosoft.com>
---
 net/core/fib_rules.c | 21 ++++++++++++++-------
 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/core/fib_rules.c b/net/core/fib_rules.c
index be4629c344a6..4524bfe7230b 100644
--- a/net/core/fib_rules.c
+++ b/net/core/fib_rules.c
@@ -495,7 +495,7 @@ int fib_nl_delrule(struct sk_buff *skb, struct nlmsghdr *nlh)
 	struct net *net = sock_net(skb->sk);
 	struct fib_rule_hdr *frh = nlmsg_data(nlh);
 	struct fib_rules_ops *ops = NULL;
-	struct fib_rule *rule, *tmp;
+	struct fib_rule *rule, *r;
 	struct nlattr *tb[FRA_MAX+1];
 	int err = -EINVAL;
 
@@ -579,16 +579,23 @@ int fib_nl_delrule(struct sk_buff *skb, struct nlmsghdr *nlh)
 
 		/*
 		 * Check if this rule is a target to any of them. If so,
+		 * adjust to the next one with the same preference or
 		 * disable them. As this operation is eventually very
-		 * expensive, it is only performed if goto rules have
-		 * actually been added.
+		 * expensive, it is only performed if goto rules, except
+		 * current if it is goto rule, have actually been added.
 		 */
 		if (ops->nr_goto_rules > 0) {
-			list_for_each_entry(tmp, &ops->rules_list, list) {
-				if (rtnl_dereference(tmp->ctarget) == rule) {
-					RCU_INIT_POINTER(tmp->ctarget, NULL);
+			struct fib_rule *n;
+
+			n = list_next_entry(rule, list);
+			if (&n->list == &ops->rules_list || n->pref != rule->pref)
+				n = NULL;
+			list_for_each_entry(r, &ops->rules_list, list) {
+				if (rtnl_dereference(r->ctarget) != rule)
+					continue;
+				rcu_assign_pointer(r->ctarget, n);
+				if (!n)
 					ops->unresolved_rules++;
-				}
 			}
 		}
 
-- 
2.15.1