[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140114185329.GB28205@breakpoint.cc>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 19:53:29 +0100
From: Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
To: Andrey Vagin <avagin@...nvz.org>
Cc: netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
netfilter@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, vvs@...nvz.org,
Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>,
Vasiliy Averin <vvs@...allels.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] netfilter: nf_conntrack: don't relase a conntrack
with non-zero refcnt
Andrey Vagin <avagin@...nvz.org> wrote:
> ----
> Eric and Florian, could you look at this patch. When you say,
> that it looks good, I will ask the user to validate it.
> I can't reorder these actions, because it's reproduced on a real host
> with real users. Thanks.
> ----
>
> nf_conntrack_free can't be called for a conntract with non-zero ref-counter,
> because it can race with nf_conntrack_find_get().
Indeed.
> A conntrack slab is created with SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU. Non-zero
> ref-conunter says that this conntrack is used now. So when we release a
> conntrack with non-zero counter, we break this assumption.
>
> CPU1 CPU2
> ____nf_conntrack_find()
> nf_ct_put()
> destroy_conntrack()
> ...
> init_conntrack
> __nf_conntrack_alloc (set use = 1)
> atomic_inc_not_zero(&ct->use) (use = 2)
> if (!l4proto->new(ct, skb, dataoff, timeouts))
> nf_conntrack_free(ct); (use = 2 !!!)
> ...
Yes, I think this sequence is possible; we must not use nf_conntrack_free here.
> - /* We overload first tuple to link into unconfirmed or dying list.*/
> - BUG_ON(hlist_nulls_unhashed(&ct->tuplehash[IP_CT_DIR_ORIGINAL].hnnode));
> - hlist_nulls_del_rcu(&ct->tuplehash[IP_CT_DIR_ORIGINAL].hnnode);
> + if (!hlist_nulls_unhashed(&ct->tuplehash[IP_CT_DIR_ORIGINAL].hnnode))
> + hlist_nulls_del_rcu(&ct->tuplehash[IP_CT_DIR_ORIGINAL].hnnode);
This is the only thing that I don't like about this patch. Currently
all the conntracks in the system are always put on a list before they're
supposed to be visible/handled via refcnt system (unconfirmed, hash, or
dying list).
I think it would be nice if we could keep it that way.
If everything fails we could proably intoduce a 'larval' dummy list
similar to the one used by template conntracks?
--
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