netdev - Re: [patch 1/1][NETNS][IPV6] protect addrconf from loopback registration

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: <m1lk934dtr.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com>
Date:	Mon, 12 Nov 2007 09:40:32 -0700
From:	ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:	Daniel Lezcano <dlezcano@...ibm.com>
Cc:	davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org, den@...ru,
	xemul@...nvz.org, containers@...ts.osdl.org,
	yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org, Benjamin Thery <benjamin.thery@...l.net>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/1][NETNS][IPV6] protect addrconf from loopback registration

Daniel Lezcano <dlezcano@...ibm.com> writes:

> The loopback is now dynamically allocated. The ipv6 code was written
> considering the loopback is allocated before the ipv6 protocol 
> initialization. This is still the case when we don't use multiple
> network namespaces.


You do know that register_netdevice_notifier delivers events 
REGISTER and UP events for devices that are already up?

Thinking about it I wonder if unregister_netdevice_notifier should
actually deliver UNREGISTER events.  It wouldn't change the ipv6
case as I don't believe you can unregister ipv6.

> In the case of the network namespaces, ipv6 notification handler is
> already setup and active (done by the initial network namespace), 
> so when a network namespace is created, a new instance of the 
> loopback device, via dynamic allocation, will trigger a REGISTER event
> to addrconf_notify and this one will try to setup the network device
> while the ipv6 protocol is not yet initialized for the network namespace.

Ok.  This sounds like a race in ipv6 that should get fixed.

I know last time my patchset covered ipv6 I did send patches for several
reference counting problems.  I'm surprised something bad still exists.

Anyway let's not patch around this and fix whatever the real problem.

> Because the ipv6 is relying on the fact that the loopback device will
> not trigger REGISTER/UNREGISTER events, I just protect the addrconf_notify
> function when the loopback register event is triggered.

This can't be the case REGISTER events happen.

> In the case of multiple network namespaces, the usual ipv6 protocol 
> initialization will be done after the loopback initialization with 
> the subsystem registration mechanism.
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <dlezcano@...ibm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Benjamin Thery <benjamin.thery@...l.net>
> ---
>  net/ipv6/addrconf.c |    9 +++++++--
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> Index: linux-2.6-netns/net/ipv6/addrconf.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6-netns.orig/net/ipv6/addrconf.c
> +++ linux-2.6-netns/net/ipv6/addrconf.c
> @@ -2272,7 +2272,8 @@ static int addrconf_notify(struct notifi
>  
>  	switch(event) {
>  	case NETDEV_REGISTER:
> -		if (!idev && dev->mtu >= IPV6_MIN_MTU) {
> +		if (!(dev->flags & IFF_LOOPBACK) &&
> +		    !idev && dev->mtu >= IPV6_MIN_MTU) {
>  			idev = ipv6_add_dev(dev);
>  			if (!idev)
>  				return notifier_from_errno(-ENOMEM);

This hunk is clearly bogus.

> @@ -2366,11 +2367,15 @@ static int addrconf_notify(struct notifi
>  		/* MTU falled under IPV6_MIN_MTU. Stop IPv6 on this
> interface. */
>  
>  	case NETDEV_DOWN:
> +		addrconf_ifdown(dev, 0);
> +		break;
> +
>  	case NETDEV_UNREGISTER:
>  		/*
>  		 *	Remove all addresses from this interface.
>  		 */
> -		addrconf_ifdown(dev, event != NETDEV_DOWN);
> +		if (!(dev->flags & IFF_LOOPBACK))
> +			addrconf_ifdown(dev, 1);

I can see how this could be a problem.
>  		break;
>  
>  	case NETDEV_CHANGENAME:
>
> -- 
-
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