lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Aug]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
From
Date
Subject[PATCH 3.16 077/134] netfilter: ctnetlink: make it safer when updating ct->status
3.16.47-rc1 review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: Liping Zhang <zlpnobody@gmail.com>

commit 53b56da83d7899de375a9de153fd7f5397de85e6 upstream.

After converting to use rcu for conntrack hash, one CPU may update
the ct->status via ctnetlink, while another CPU may process the
packets and update the ct->status.

So the non-atomic operation "ct->status |= status;" via ctnetlink
becomes unsafe, and this may clear the IPS_DYING_BIT bit set by
another CPU unexpectedly. For example:
CPU0 CPU1
ctnetlink_change_status __nf_conntrack_find_get
old = ct->status nf_ct_gc_expired
- nf_ct_kill
- test_and_set_bit(IPS_DYING_BIT
new = old | status; -
ct->status = new; <-- oops, _DYING_ is cleared!

Now using a series of atomic bit operation to solve the above issue.

Also note, user shouldn't set IPS_TEMPLATE, IPS_SEQ_ADJUST directly,
so make these two bits be unchangable too.

If we set the IPS_TEMPLATE_BIT, ct will be freed by nf_ct_tmpl_free,
but actually it is alloced by nf_conntrack_alloc.
If we set the IPS_SEQ_ADJUST_BIT, this may cause the NULL pointer
deference, as the nfct_seqadj(ct) maybe NULL.

Last, add some comments to describe the logic change due to the
commit a963d710f367 ("netfilter: ctnetlink: Fix regression in CTA_STATUS
processing"), which makes me feel a little confusing.

Fixes: 76507f69c44e ("[NETFILTER]: nf_conntrack: use RCU for conntrack hash")
Signed-off-by: Liping Zhang <zlpnobody@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org>
[bwh: Backported to 3.16: IPS_UNCHANGEABLE_MASK was not previously defined and
ctnetlink_update_status() is not needed]
Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk>
---
--- a/include/uapi/linux/netfilter/nf_conntrack_common.h
+++ b/include/uapi/linux/netfilter/nf_conntrack_common.h
@@ -91,6 +91,15 @@ enum ip_conntrack_status {
/* Conntrack got a helper explicitly attached via CT target. */
IPS_HELPER_BIT = 13,
IPS_HELPER = (1 << IPS_HELPER_BIT),
+
+ /* Be careful here, modifying these bits can make things messy,
+ * so don't let users modify them directly.
+ */
+ IPS_UNCHANGEABLE_MASK = (IPS_NAT_DONE_MASK | IPS_NAT_MASK |
+ IPS_EXPECTED | IPS_CONFIRMED | IPS_DYING |
+ IPS_SEQ_ADJUST | IPS_TEMPLATE),
+
+ __IPS_MAX_BIT = 14,
};

/* Connection tracking event types */
--- a/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_netlink.c
+++ b/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_netlink.c
@@ -1307,6 +1307,24 @@ ctnetlink_parse_nat_setup(struct nf_conn
}
#endif

+static void
+__ctnetlink_change_status(struct nf_conn *ct, unsigned long on,
+ unsigned long off)
+{
+ unsigned int bit;
+
+ /* Ignore these unchangable bits */
+ on &= ~IPS_UNCHANGEABLE_MASK;
+ off &= ~IPS_UNCHANGEABLE_MASK;
+
+ for (bit = 0; bit < __IPS_MAX_BIT; bit++) {
+ if (on & (1 << bit))
+ set_bit(bit, &ct->status);
+ else if (off & (1 << bit))
+ clear_bit(bit, &ct->status);
+ }
+}
+
static int
ctnetlink_change_status(struct nf_conn *ct, const struct nlattr * const cda[])
{
@@ -1326,10 +1344,7 @@ ctnetlink_change_status(struct nf_conn *
/* ASSURED bit can only be set */
return -EBUSY;

- /* Be careful here, modifying NAT bits can screw up things,
- * so don't let users modify them directly if they don't pass
- * nf_nat_range. */
- ct->status |= status & ~(IPS_NAT_DONE_MASK | IPS_NAT_MASK);
+ __ctnetlink_change_status(ct, status, 0);
return 0;
}

@@ -1513,7 +1528,7 @@ ctnetlink_change_seq_adj(struct nf_conn
if (ret < 0)
return ret;

- ct->status |= IPS_SEQ_ADJUST;
+ set_bit(IPS_SEQ_ADJUST_BIT, &ct->status);
}

if (cda[CTA_SEQ_ADJ_REPLY]) {
@@ -1522,7 +1537,7 @@ ctnetlink_change_seq_adj(struct nf_conn
if (ret < 0)
return ret;

- ct->status |= IPS_SEQ_ADJUST;
+ set_bit(IPS_SEQ_ADJUST_BIT, &ct->status);
}

return 0;
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-08-18 15:37    [W:0.326 / U:7.280 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site