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]
Date:	Mon, 27 Oct 2014 10:32:35 +0100
From:	Nikolay Aleksandrov <>
To:	Eric Dumazet <>
CC:	Florian Westphal <>,
	Stephen Hemminger <>,,
Subject: Re: Fw: [Bug 86851] New: Reproducible panic on heavy UDP traffic

On 10/27/2014 10:12 AM, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
> On 10/27/2014 09:48 AM, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
>> On 10/27/2014 01:47 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2014-10-27 at 00:28 +0100, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
>>>> Thanks for CCing me.
>>>> I'll dig in the code tomorrow but my first thought when I saw this was
>>>> could it be possible that we have a race condition between
>>>> ip_frag_queue() and inet_frag_evict(), more precisely between the
>>>> ipq_kill() calls from ip_frag_queue and inet_frag_evict since the frag
>>>> could be found before we have entered the evictor which then can add it to
>>>> its expire list but the ipq_kill() from ip_frag_queue() can do a list_del
>>>> after we release the chain lock in the evictor so we may end up like this ?
>>> Yes, either we use hlist_del_init() but loose poison aid, or test if
>>> frag was evicted :
>>> Not sure about refcount.
>>> diff --git a/net/ipv4/inet_fragment.c b/net/ipv4/inet_fragment.c
>>> index 9eb89f3f0ee4..894ec30c5896 100644
>>> --- a/net/ipv4/inet_fragment.c
>>> +++ b/net/ipv4/inet_fragment.c
>>> @@ -285,7 +285,8 @@ static inline void fq_unlink(struct inet_frag_queue *fq, struct inet_frags *f)
>>>  	struct inet_frag_bucket *hb;
>>>  	hb = get_frag_bucket_locked(fq, f);
>>> -	hlist_del(&fq->list);
>>> +	if (!(fq->flags & INET_FRAG_EVICTED))
>>> +		hlist_del(&fq->list);
>>>  	spin_unlock(&hb->chain_lock);
>>>  }
>> Exactly, I was thinking about a similar fix since the evict flag is only
>> set with the chain lock. IMO the refcount should be fine.
>> CCing the reporter.
>> Patrick could you please try Eric's patch ?
> Actually there might be a refcnt problem. What if the following happens:
> refcnt = 2 (1 for timer, 1 init)
> 	A			B
> inet_frag_find() +1 (3)
> ipq_kill() -2 (1)          inet_frag_evict() (sees it before fq_unlink)
> spin_unlock(q.lock)
> 			   ->frag_expire() -1 (0 -> frag_destroy())
> *ipq_put(freed frag)*
> Or the other way around, last ipq_put() is executed before frag_expire
> so we have a freed frag on the expire list.
Ah, I forgot about the del_timer(), only one of the two can actually delete
it so in the case inet_frag_kill() deletes it, it'll take the timer refcnt
but inet_evict_frag() won't add the frag to the list (and we may actually
hit the WARN_ON(refcnt!=1) in inet_evict_frag), in the other case
inet_frag_evict() deletes the timer but the refcnt for it stays and we're
fine w.r.t. inet_frag_kill. I think we should also remove the WARN_ON() in
inet_frag_evict as the timer running is not the only case to be in that
if() branch, inet_frag_evict could be running with inet_frag_kill() being
called by *frag_queue() with taken refcount but just after deleting the timer.
Does this sound sane ? :-) I need to get some coffee...
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists