linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] netfilter: tproxy: Add RCU protection in nf_tproxy

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]

Message-ID: <20240904124840.GA15053@breakpoint.cc>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2024 14:48:40 +0200
From: Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
To: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Cc: Jiawei Ye <jiawei.ye@...mail.com>, pablo@...filter.org,
	kadlec@...filter.org, davem@...emloft.net, dsahern@...nel.org,
	kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, fw@...len.de,
	netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, coreteam@...filter.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] netfilter: tproxy: Add RCU protection in nf_tproxy_laddr4

Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 4, 2024 at 2:25 PM Jiawei Ye <jiawei.ye@...mail.com> wrote:
> >
> > In the `nf_tproxy_laddr4` function, both the `__in_dev_get_rcu()` call
> > and the `in_dev_for_each_ifa_rcu()` macro are used to access
> > RCU-protected data structures. Previously, these accesses were not
> > enclosed within an RCU read-side critical section, which violates RCU
> > usage rules and can lead to race conditions, data inconsistencies, and
> > memory corruption issues.
> >
> > This possible bug was identified using a static analysis tool developed
> > by myself, specifically designed to detect RCU-related issues.
> >
> > To address this, `rcu_read_lock()` and `rcu_read_unlock()` are added
> > around the RCU-protected operations in the `nf_tproxy_laddr4` function by
> > acquiring the RCU read lock before calling `__in_dev_get_rcu()` and
> > iterating with `in_dev_for_each_ifa_rcu()`. This change prevents
> > potential RCU issues and adheres to proper RCU usage patterns.
> 
> Please share with us the complete  stack trace where you think rcu is not held,
> because your static tool is unknown to us.
> 
> nf_tproxy_get_sock_v4() would have a similar issue.

Right, all netfilter hooks assume rcu read lock is held.

See nf_hook()/nf_hook_slow().