netdev - Re: Possible netfilter-related memory corruption in 2.6.37

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, 14 Feb 2011 17:29:15 +0100
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
Cc:	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ozas.de>, Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
	netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org,
	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
	nicolas prochazka <prochazka.nicolas@...il.com>,
	KVM list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Possible netfilter-related memory corruption in 2.6.37

Le lundi 14 février 2011 à 17:24 +0100, Patrick McHardy a écrit :
> Am 14.02.2011 16:50, schrieb Eric Dumazet:
> > Le lundi 14 février 2011 à 16:18 +0100, Jan Engelhardt a écrit :
> >> On Monday 2011-02-14 16:11, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> >>
> >>> Le lundi 14 février 2011 à 16:58 +0200, Avi Kivity a écrit :
> >>>> We see severe memory corruption in kvm while used in conjunction with 
> >>>> bridge/netfilter.  Enabling slab debugging points the finger at a 
> >>>> netfilter chain invoked from the bridge code.
> >>>>
> >>>> Can someone take a look?
> >>>>
> >>>> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=27052
> >>
> >> Maybe looks familiar to https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/2/3/147
> > 
> > Are you sure Jan ?
> > 
> > IMHO it looks like in your case, a NULL ->hook() is called, from
> > nf_iterate()
> > 
> > BTW, list_for_each_continue_rcu() really should be converted to 
> > list_for_each_entry_continue_rcu()
> > 
> > This is a bit ugly :
> > 
> > list_for_each_continue_rcu(*i, head) {
> > 	struct nf_hook_ops *elem = (struct nf_hook_ops *)*i;
> > 
> > Also, I wonder if RCU rules are respected in nf_iterate().
> > For example this line is really suspicious :
> > 
> > *i = (*i)->prev;
> 
> Yeah, that definitely looks wrong. How about this instead?
> 

This patch seems fine to me, thanks !

Acked-by: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>



--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html