Netdev List
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ido Schimmel <idosch@nvidia.com>
To: Dong Chenchen <dongchenchen2@huawei.com>
Cc: dsahern@kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com,
	kuba@kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com, horms@kernel.org,
	herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	zhangchangzhong@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2] ipv4: icmp: reject RTN_UNREACHABLE input routes in icmp_route_lookup
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2026 17:15:35 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260817141535.GA432475@shredder> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260815075102.3426068-1-dongchenchen2@huawei.com>

On Sat, Aug 15, 2026 at 03:51:02PM +0800, Dong Chenchen wrote:
> When the forward output route cannot be used in icmp_route_lookup(),
> it enters the "reverse path" and calls ip_route_input() on fl4_dec.daddr,
> the original packet's source address.
> 
> ip_route_input() only returns an error for truly invalid packets. For
> unreachable addresses it will succeed and return an input route whose
> dst.output is set to ip_rt_bug(). The existing check only rejects
> RTN_LOCAL routes, so the RTN_UNREACHABLE route types can still be returned
> and later used for output, syzkaller triggering a WARN_ON_ONCE()
> in ip_rt_bug() as bellow:
> 
>  ------------[ cut here ]------------
>  WARNING: net/ipv4/route.c:1273 at ip_rt_bug+0x14/0x20
>  RIP: 0010:ip_rt_bug+0x14/0x20
>  Call Trace:
>   ip_push_pending_frames+0xfa/0x100
>   __icmp_send+0x905/0xf10
>   ip_options_compile+0xc0/0xd0
>   ip_rcv_finish_core+0x321/0xae0
>   ip_rcv+0x1de/0x260
>   __netif_receive_skb_one_core+0x11a/0x130
>   netif_receive_skb+0x7b/0x260
>   tun_get_user+0x11bf/0x1c10
>  ------------[ cut here ]------------
> 
> Reject any input route that is RTN_UNREACHABLE to fix it.
> 
> Fixes: 8b7817f3a959 ("[IPSEC]: Add ICMP host relookup support")
> Signed-off-by: Dong Chenchen <dongchenchen2@huawei.com>

FYI, there's a new policy regarding AI review:

"
Patch authors are expected to proactively look into the AI-generated
reviews and handle such feedback as any other kind of review: either
debate it or address it. In both cases a reply on the mailing list is
expected.
"

https://docs.kernel.org/next/process/maintainer-netdev.html#review-timelines

> ---
>  net/ipv4/icmp.c | 8 ++++----
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/net/ipv4/icmp.c b/net/ipv4/icmp.c
> index 0caedfc7ca92..4703d8dd6b47 100644
> --- a/net/ipv4/icmp.c
> +++ b/net/ipv4/icmp.c
> @@ -585,11 +585,11 @@ static struct rtable *icmp_route_lookup(struct net *net, struct flowi4 *fl4,
>  		 * checked fl4_dec.saddr above). However, a race condition
>  		 * may occur if the address is added to the interface
>  		 * concurrently. In that case, ip_route_input() returns a
> -		 * LOCAL route with dst.output=ip_rt_bug, which must not
> -		 * be used for output.
> +		 * LOCAL or UNREACHABLE route with dst.output=ip_rt_bug,
> +		 * which must not be used for output.
>  		 */

Why would the addition of an address lead to RTN_UNREACHABLE? This seems
to be true for RTN_LOCAL, but not for RTN_UNREACHABLE. Similarly, it
doesn't seem like RTN_UNREACHABLE is the result of a race condition.

The comment needs to be reworded to reflect that.

> -		if (!err && rt2 && rt2->rt_type == RTN_LOCAL) {
> -			net_warn_ratelimited("detected local route for %pI4 during ICMP sending, src %pI4\n",
> +		if (!err && rt2 && (rt2->rt_type == RTN_LOCAL || rt2->rt_type == RTN_UNREACHABLE)) {
> +			net_warn_ratelimited("detected unusable input route for %pI4 during ICMP sending, src %pI4\n",
>  					     &fl4_dec.daddr, &fl4_dec.saddr);

The check is fine, but if RTN_UNREACHABLE is not the result of a race
condition, then net_warn_ratelimited() should only be emitted for
RTN_LOCAL.

>  			dst_release(&rt2->dst);
>  			err = -EINVAL;
> -- 
> 2.25.1
> 

      reply	other threads:[~2026-08-17 14:15 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-08-15  7:51 [PATCH net v2] ipv4: icmp: reject RTN_UNREACHABLE input routes in icmp_route_lookup Dong Chenchen
2026-08-17 14:15 ` Ido Schimmel [this message]

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=20260817141535.GA432475@shredder \
    --to=idosch@nvidia.com \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=dongchenchen2@huawei.com \
    --cc=dsahern@kernel.org \
    --cc=edumazet@google.com \
    --cc=herbert@gondor.apana.org.au \
    --cc=horms@kernel.org \
    --cc=kuba@kernel.org \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
    --cc=zhangchangzhong@huawei.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