From: Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>
To: billbonaparte <programme110@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
'Netfilter Developer Mailing List'
<netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org>,
'Pablo Neira Ayuso' <pablo@netfilter.org>,
'Patrick McHardy' <kaber@trash.net>,
kadlec@blackhole.kfki.hu, davem@davemloft.net,
'Changli Gao' <xiaosuo@gmail.com>,
'Jesper Dangaard Brouer' <brouer@redhat.com>,
'Andrey Vagin' <avagin@openvz.org>
Subject: Re: netfilter: nf_conntrack: there maybe a bug in __nf_conntrack_confirm, when it race against get_next_corpse
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 10:46:12 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20141028094612.GA14392@breakpoint.cc> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <02f201cff260$8622e610$9268b230$@gmail.com>
billbonaparte <programme110@gmail.com> wrote:
> In function __nf_conntrack_confirm, we check the conntrack if it was
> alreay 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.
> but we don't do that right.
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, and add
Fixes: 93bb0ceb75be2 (netfilter: conntrack: remove central spinlock nf_conntrack_lock)
tag to patch.
> 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.
Yes.
> 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.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-10-28 9:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <02ef01cff25f$29887f60$7c997e20$@gmail.com>
2014-10-28 3:37 ` netfilter: nf_conntrack: there maybe a bug in __nf_conntrack_confirm, when it race against get_next_corpse billbonaparte
2014-10-28 9:46 ` Florian Westphal [this message]
2014-10-28 10:11 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2014-11-07 6:47 Bill Bonaparte
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2014-11-04 1:52 billbonaparte
2014-11-04 1:48 billbonaparte
2014-11-06 13:00 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2014-10-28 3:27 billbonaparte
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20141028094612.GA14392@breakpoint.cc \
--to=fw@strlen.de \
--cc=avagin@openvz.org \
--cc=brouer@redhat.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=kaber@trash.net \
--cc=kadlec@blackhole.kfki.hu \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pablo@netfilter.org \
--cc=programme110@gmail.com \
--cc=xiaosuo@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.