[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140109210749.GA29440@paralelels.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 01:07:49 +0400
From: Andrew Vagin <avagin@...allels.com>
To: Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
CC: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Andrey Vagin <avagin@...nvz.org>,
<netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org>, <netfilter@...r.kernel.org>,
<coreteam@...filter.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <vvs@...nvz.org>,
Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>,
Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>,
Jozsef Kadlecsik <kadlec@...ckhole.kfki.hu>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"Cyrill Gorcunov" <gorcunov@...nvz.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] netfilter: nf_conntrack: fix RCU race in
nf_conntrack_find_get
On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 09:56:22PM +0100, Florian Westphal wrote:
> Andrew Vagin <avagin@...allels.com> wrote:
> > Can we allocate conntrack with zero ct_general.use and increment it at
> > the first time before inserting the conntrack into the hash table?
> > When conntrack is allocated it is attached exclusively to one skb.
> > It must be destroyed with skb, if it has not been confirmed, so we
> > don't need refcnt on this stage.
> >
> > I found only one place, where a reference counter of unconfirmed
> > conntract can incremented. It's ctnetlink_dump_table().
>
> What about skb_clone, etc? They will also increment the refcnt
> if a conntrack entry is attached to the skb.
We can not attach an unconfirmed conntrack to a few skb, because
nf_nat_setup_info can be executed concurrently for the same conntrack.
How do we avoid this race condition for cloned skb-s?
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists