All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org>
To: Liping Zhang <zlpnobody@gmail.com>
Cc: Liping Zhang <zlpnobody@163.com>,
	Netfilter Developer Mailing List
	<netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH nf] netfilter: ctnetlink: remove unnecessary nf_conntrack_expect_lock protection
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 14:02:05 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170410120205.GE2155@salvia> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAML_gOdrjnSB-FxHj9oTfVFWODmNGxh5y0GZ2JPOMqjp=xa1ng@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Apr 09, 2017 at 12:21:22PM +0800, Liping Zhang wrote:
> Hi Pablo,
> 
> 2017-04-09 5:16 GMT+08:00 Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org>:
> > On Sat, Apr 01, 2017 at 10:14:24PM +0800, Liping Zhang wrote:
> >> @@ -1960,9 +1955,7 @@ static int ctnetlink_new_conntrack(struct net *net, struct sock *ctnl,
> >>       err = -EEXIST;
> >>       ct = nf_ct_tuplehash_to_ctrack(h);
> >>       if (!(nlh->nlmsg_flags & NLM_F_EXCL)) {
> >> -             spin_lock_bh(&nf_conntrack_expect_lock);
> >>               err = ctnetlink_change_conntrack(ct, cda);
> >> -             spin_unlock_bh(&nf_conntrack_expect_lock);
> >
> > We used to have a central spinlock here.
> >
> >         spin_lock_bh(&nf_conntrack_lock);
> >
> > that was removed time ago, so this go converted to use
> > nf_conntrack_expect_lock.
> 
> This patch should add:
> 
> Fixes: ca7433df3a67 ("netfilter: conntrack: seperate expect locking
> from nf_conntrack_lock")
> 
> Commit ca7433df3a67 add spin_lock_bh(&nf_conntrack_expect_lock) in
> nf_ct_remove_expectations, but we also lock the _expect_lock before calling
> ctnetlink_change_conntrack, so dead lock will happen:
> 
>  spin_lock_bh(&nf_conntrack_expect_lock):
> ->err = ctnetlink_change_conntrack(ct, cda)
> -->ctnetlink_change_helper
> --->if (!strcmp(helpname, "")) nf_ct_remove_expectations()
> ---->spin_lock_bh(&nf_conntrack_expect_lock); //lock _expect_lock
> again, dead lock!

I agree this is fixing the deadlock but see below.

> Since ctnetlink_change_conntrack is unrelated to nf_conntrack_expect_lock,
> so remove it can fix this issue.

But packets may be updating a conntrack at the same time that we're
mangling via ctnetlink, right?

  reply	other threads:[~2017-04-10 12:02 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-04-01 14:14 [PATCH nf] netfilter: ctnetlink: remove unnecessary nf_conntrack_expect_lock protection Liping Zhang
2017-04-08 21:16 ` Pablo Neira Ayuso
2017-04-09  4:21   ` Liping Zhang
2017-04-10 12:02     ` Pablo Neira Ayuso [this message]
2017-04-10 13:53       ` Liping Zhang
2017-04-13 22:03         ` Pablo Neira Ayuso
2017-04-13 21:52 ` Pablo Neira Ayuso

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=20170410120205.GE2155@salvia \
    --to=pablo@netfilter.org \
    --cc=netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=zlpnobody@163.com \
    --cc=zlpnobody@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.