Re: netfilter: nf_conntrack: there maybe a bug in __nf_conntrack_confirm, when it race against get_next_corpse

From: billbonaparte
Date: Mon Nov 03 2014 - 20:49:26 EST


(sorry to send this e-mail again, last mail is rejected by server due to
non-acceptable content)

Florian Westphal [mailto:fw@xxxxxxxxx] wrote:
>Correct. This is broken since the central spin lock removal, since
>nf_conntrack_lock no longer protects both get_next_corpse and
>conntrack_confirm.
>
>Please send a patch, moving dying check after removal of conntrack from
>the percpu list,
Since unconfirmed conntrack is stored in unconfirmed-list which is per-cpu
list and protected by per-cpu spin-lock, we can remove it from
uncomfirmed-list and insert it into ct-hash-table separately. that is to
say, we can remove it from uncomfirmed-list without holding corresponding
hash-lock, then check if it is dying.
if it is dying, we add it to the dying-list, then quit
__nf_conntrack_confirm. we do this to follow the rules that the conntrack
must alternatively at unconfirmed-list or dying-list when it is abort to be
destroyed.

>> 2. operation on ct->status should be atomic, because it race aginst
>> get_next_corpse.
>
>Alternatively we could also get rid of the unconfirmed list handling in
get_next_corpse,
>it looks to me as if its simply not worth the trouble to also caring
>about
unconfirmed lists.

yes, I think so.
if there is a race at operating ct->status, there will be in alternative
case:
1) IPS_DYING bit which set in get_next_corpse override other bits (e.g.
IPS_SRC_NAT_DONE_BIT), or
2) other bits (e.g. IPS_SRC_NAT_DONE_BIT) which set in nf_nat_setup_info
override IPS_DYING bit.
but, any case seems to be okay.

Attachment: fix_conntrack_confirm_race.patch
Description: Binary data