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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <02ee01cff25f$28808540$79818fc0$@gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 28 Oct 2014 11:27:43 +0800
From:	"billbonaparte" <programme110@...il.com>
To:	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Netfilter Developer Mailing List" <netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"'Pablo Neira Ayuso'" <pablo@...filter.org>,
	"'Patrick McHardy'" <kaber@...sh.net>, <kadlec@...ckhole.kfki.hu>,
	<davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	"'Changli Gao'" <xiaosuo@...il.com>,
	"'Jozsef Kadlecsik'" <kadlec@...ckhole.kfki.hu>,
	"'Jesper Dangaard Brouer'" <brouer@...hat.com>,
	"'Andrey Vagin'" <avagin@...nvz.org>
Subject: netfilter: nf_conntrack: there maybe a bug in __nf_conntrack_confirm, when it race against get_next_corpse

Hi, all:
	In function __nf_conntrack_confirm, we check the conntrack if it was
alreay dead, before insert it into hash-table. 
	we do this because if we insert an already 'dead' hash,  it will
block further use of that particular connection.
	but we don't do that right.
    let's consider the following case:
	
	cpu1
cpu2
	__nf_conntrack_confirm
get_next_corpse
   		lock corresponding hash-list
....
		check nf_ct_is_dying(ct)
for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
		......
spin_lock_bh(&pcpu->lock);
		......
set_bit(IPS_DYING_BIT, &ct->status);
		nf_ct_del_from_dying_or_unconfirmed_list(ct);
spin_unlock_bh(&pcpu_lock);
		add_timer(&ct->timeout);
}	
		ct->status |= IPS_CONFIRMD;
		__nf_conntrack_hash_insert(ct);


	
	The above case reveal two problems:
	1. we may insert a dead conntrack to hash-table, it will block
further use of that particular connection.
	2. operation on ct->status should be atomic, because it race aginst
get_next_corpse.
	  due to this reason, the operation on ct->status in
nf_nat_setup_info should be atomic as well.

	if we want to resolve the first problem, we must delete the
unconfirmed conntrack from unconfirmed-list first, then check if it is
already dead.
	Am I right to do this ?
	Appreciate any comments and reply.

--
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