netdev - Re: [Patch nf] netfilter: xt_hashlimit: unregister proc file before releasing mutex

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: <20200226181106.ekb2mpmtgbxrpepz@salvia>
Date:   Wed, 26 Feb 2020 19:11:06 +0100
From:   Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>
To:     Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>,
        NetFilter <netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
        syzbot <syzbot+d195fd3b9a364ddd6731@...kaller.appspotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch nf] netfilter: xt_hashlimit: unregister proc file before
 releasing mutex

On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 07:32:13PM -0800, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 2:05 PM Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 01:40:26PM -0800, Cong Wang wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 1:35 PM Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 10:53:52PM -0800, Cong Wang wrote:
> > > > > Before releasing the global mutex, we only unlink the hashtable
> > > > > from the hash list, its proc file is still not unregistered at
> > > > > this point. So syzbot could trigger a race condition where a
> > > > > parallel htable_create() could register the same file immediately
> > > > > after the mutex is released.
> > > > >
> > > > > Move htable_remove_proc_entry() back to mutex protection to
> > > > > fix this. And, fold htable_destroy() into htable_put() to make
> > > > > the code slightly easier to understand.
> > > >
> > > > Probably revert previous one?
> > >
> > > The hung task could appear again if we move the cleanup
> > > back under mutex.
> >
> > How could the hung task appear again by reverting
> > c4a3922d2d20c710f827? Please elaborate.
> 
> Because the cfg.max could be as large as 8*HASHLIMIT_MAX_SIZE:
> 
>  311         if (hinfo->cfg.max == 0)
>  312                 hinfo->cfg.max = 8 * hinfo->cfg.size;
>  313         else if (hinfo->cfg.max < hinfo->cfg.size)
>  314                 hinfo->cfg.max = hinfo->cfg.size;
> 
> Not sure whether we can finish cleaning up 8*HASHLIMIT_MAX_SIZE
> entries within the time a hung task tolerates. This largely depends on
> how much contention the spinlock has, at least I don't want to bet
> on it.

Please, resend. Thanks.