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

[Jesper Dangaard Brouer]

On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 11:37:31 +0800 "billbonaparte" <programme110@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hi, all:
> sorry for sending this mail again, the last mail doesn't show text
> clearly.

This one also mangles the text, so I cannot follow the race you are
describing.  I'll try to reconstruct...

> In function __nf_conntrack_confirm, we check the conntrack if it was
> already dead, before insert it into hash-table. 
> We do this because if we insert an already 'dead' hash,  it will
> block further use of that particular connection.

Have you run into this problem in practice, or is this based on a
theory?

> but we don't do that right.
> let's consider the following case:
> 
[tried to reconstruct]

> 	cpu1                             cpu2
> __nf_conntrack_confirm             get_next_corpse
>   lock corresponding hash-list      ....
>   check nf_ct_is_dying(ct)          ....
>    .....                           for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
>    .....                           (processing &pcpu->unconfirmed)
>    .....                           spin_lock_bh(&pcpu->lock);
>    .....                           set_bit(IPS_DYING_BIT, &ct->status);
>    .....                           spin_unlock_bh(&pcpu_lock);
>  spin_lock_bh(&pcpu->lock);
>  nf_ct_del_from_dying_or_unconfirmed_list(ct);
>  spin_unlock_bh(&pcpu_lock);
>
>  add_timer(&ct->timeout);
>  ct->status |= IPS_CONFIRMED;
>  __nf_conntrack_hash_insert(ct);
>   /* the conntrack has been seted as dying*/

Yes, I think you are correct.  There is a race.  As we are modifying
the ct->status, without holding the hash bucket lock.


> The above case reveal two problems:
> 	1. we may insert a dead conntrack to hash-table, it will block
> further use of that particular connection.
> 	2. operation on ct->status should be atomic, because it race aginst
> get_next_corpse.
> 	  due to this reason, the operation on ct->status in
> nf_nat_setup_info should be atomic as well.
> 
> 	if we want to resolve the first problem, we must delete the
> unconfirmed conntrack from unconfirmed-list first, then check if it is
> already dead.

Guess that would be one approach.

> 	Am I right to do this ?
> 	Appreciate any comments and reply.

Perhaps we could get rid of unconfirmed list handling in get_next_corpse?

-- 
Best regards,
  Jesper Dangaard Brouer
  MSc.CS, Sr. Network Kernel Developer at Red Hat
  Author of http://www.iptv-analyzer.org
  LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/