From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
To: Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>
Cc: Changli Gao <xiaosuo@gmail.com>,
hawk@comx.dk,
Linux Kernel Network Hackers <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org,
Paul E McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: DDoS attack causing bad effect on conntrack searches
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 16:53:49 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1271948029.7895.5707.camel@edumazet-laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1271946961.7895.5665.camel@edumazet-laptop>
Le jeudi 22 avril 2010 à 16:36 +0200, Eric Dumazet a écrit :
> If one hash slot is under attack, then there is a bug somewhere.
>
> If we cannot avoid this, we can fallback to a secure mode at the second
> retry, and take the spinlock.
>
> Tis way, most of lookups stay lockless (one pass), and some might take
> the slot lock to avoid the possibility of a loop.
>
> I suspect a bug elsewhere, quite frankly !
>
> We have a chain that have an end pointer that doesnt match the expected
> one.
>
On normal situation, we always finish the lookup :
1) If we found the thing we were looking at.
2) We get the list end (item not found), we then check if it is the
expected end.
It is _not_ the expected end only if some writer deleted/inserted an
element in _this_ chain during our lookup.
Because our lookup is lockless, we then have to redo it because we might
miss the object we are looking for.
If we can do the 'retry' a 10 times, it means the attacker was really
clever enough to inject new packets (new conntracks) at the right
moment, in the right hash chain, and this sounds so higly incredible
that I cannot believe it at all :)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-04-22 14:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 54+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-04-22 12:58 DDoS attack causing bad effect on conntrack searches Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2010-04-22 13:13 ` Changli Gao
2010-04-22 13:17 ` Patrick McHardy
2010-04-22 14:36 ` Eric Dumazet
2010-04-22 14:53 ` Eric Dumazet [this message]
2010-04-22 15:51 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-04-22 16:02 ` Eric Dumazet
2010-04-22 16:34 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-04-22 20:38 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2010-04-22 21:03 ` Eric Dumazet
2010-04-22 21:14 ` Eric Dumazet
2010-04-22 23:44 ` David Miller
2010-04-23 5:44 ` Eric Dumazet
2010-04-23 8:13 ` David Miller
2010-04-23 8:18 ` David Miller
2010-04-23 8:40 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2010-04-23 10:36 ` Patrick McHardy
2010-04-23 11:06 ` Eric Dumazet
2010-04-22 21:28 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2010-04-23 7:23 ` Jan Engelhardt
2010-04-23 7:46 ` Eric Dumazet
2010-04-23 7:55 ` Jan Engelhardt
2010-04-23 9:23 ` Eric Dumazet
2010-04-23 10:55 ` Patrick McHardy
2010-04-23 11:05 ` Eric Dumazet
2010-04-23 11:06 ` Patrick McHardy
2010-04-23 20:57 ` Eric Dumazet
2010-04-24 11:11 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2010-04-24 20:11 ` Eric Dumazet
2010-04-26 14:36 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2010-05-31 21:21 ` Eric Dumazet
2010-06-01 0:28 ` Changli Gao
2010-06-01 5:05 ` Eric Dumazet
2010-06-01 5:48 ` Changli Gao
2010-06-01 10:18 ` Patrick McHardy
2010-06-01 10:31 ` Eric Dumazet
2010-06-01 10:41 ` Patrick McHardy
2010-06-01 16:20 ` [RFC nf-next-2.6] conntrack: per cpu nf_conntrack_untracked Eric Dumazet
2010-06-04 11:40 ` Patrick McHardy
2010-06-04 12:10 ` Changli Gao
2010-06-04 12:29 ` Patrick McHardy
2010-06-04 12:36 ` Eric Dumazet
2010-06-04 16:25 ` [PATCH nf-next-2.6] conntrack: IPS_UNTRACKED bit Eric Dumazet
2010-06-04 20:15 ` [PATCH nf-next-2.6 2/2] conntrack: per_cpu untracking Eric Dumazet
2010-06-08 14:29 ` Patrick McHardy
2010-06-08 14:52 ` Eric Dumazet
2010-06-08 15:12 ` Eric Dumazet
2010-06-09 12:45 ` Patrick McHardy
2010-06-08 14:12 ` [PATCH nf-next-2.6] conntrack: IPS_UNTRACKED bit Patrick McHardy
2010-04-23 10:56 ` DDoS attack causing bad effect on conntrack searches Patrick McHardy
2010-04-23 12:45 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2010-04-23 13:57 ` Patrick McHardy
2010-04-22 13:31 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2010-04-23 10:35 ` Patrick McHardy
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=1271948029.7895.5707.camel@edumazet-laptop \
--to=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=hawk@comx.dk \
--cc=kaber@trash.net \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox