From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.netfilter.org (mail.netfilter.org [217.70.190.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BFE9B4E73A1; Fri, 18 Sep 2026 11:29:00 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.70.190.124 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1789730942; cv=none; b=tv2399q7ftL1Z4/0QIJDOBEitu4Ljefse4yhjScf44Cqq3VRvm3gsFAJ+YV3SfsXkUYDNt/lt+eogE0VD0lv11T79ldz10VUxa1hLST7YU/ai2vgLaft/m02gVmTNhx5o8+QXW+5UXb9Y1btSvykV3F9P1XEw0XjDbwjJ6opAyQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1789730942; c=relaxed/simple; bh=02KFQrqiwT+bUDem6JcDIolJMQI61/hdrs7e+UScFOo=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version; b=EhPTcYDRAI5NLs9/FLDpwMjiVcWyYUJSdwYwAB6p8Z/w9C8+udQ6XmG3zlwdlu49yJzY2h+6eeNzMrb0ASPZKIKx6KdFm96hOjGmZkNjh60pZw8xo2Q9hkkrdLj5S/U65b1u9+cUtNcONKvphgRjNOfHKIacL9zOaDrT7O2kYxI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=netfilter.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=netfilter.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=netfilter.org header.i=@netfilter.org header.b=H43QyIhT; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.70.190.124 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=netfilter.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=netfilter.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=netfilter.org header.i=@netfilter.org header.b="H43QyIhT" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=netfilter.org; s=2025; t=1789730938; bh=DFWomdDR05PGETabdUvkIcRsf8UFfiEDT9qwLhun5gQ=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=H43QyIhTfrB2KJ75w95KYuqm1lzqMmDKW8in8Rlcwa6fxqZe3IObferqRUkVfB29n aJjZv3PWEaiqTC8F1HAIAgfdCNGtNNRYkDHyv+bpY06QzR+MzWBjGQfJ+8JkYvpG4h SDkrQumhkK+Knh9h+4xOjEQh/ibZYjKT7sosNRxp4glk2ei7Tzfy5sGF6CyZepibEg V5JQqZnUQhCH9v80vgcnpAV3QW9ZIhFNbT9mGJHbQGMFokaz4nqL1wLW5rERhX6cMA YAGfOlH2Ixk/bltHbUjmbFRui68DvN5eVlmOpT6LyJfAPuuGlhAolF3On8/vt1gqLl Hl7GSENPwQwwg== Received: from localhost.localdomain (mail-agni [217.70.190.124]) by mail.netfilter.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2E75360076; Fri, 18 Sep 2026 13:28:58 +0200 (CEST) From: Pablo Neira Ayuso To: netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org Cc: davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, kuba@kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com, edumazet@google.com, horms@kernel.org, fw@strlen.de, ja@ssi.bg Subject: [PATCH net 7/8] netfilter: ctnetlink: fix suspicious RCU usage in expect_iter_name Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2026 13:28:43 +0200 Message-ID: <20260918112844.194503-8-pablo@netfilter.org> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.47.3 In-Reply-To: <20260918112844.194503-1-pablo@netfilter.org> References: <20260918112844.194503-1-pablo@netfilter.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Naman Gulati expect_iter_name() is invoked by nf_ct_expect_iterate_net() under spin_lock_bh(&nf_conntrack_expect_lock). It does not hold rcu_read_lock(). When accessing exp->helper with rcu_dereference() in syzbot's report, lockdep warns: ============================= WARNING: suspicious RCU usage syzkaller #0 Not tainted ----------------------------- net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_netlink.c:3393 suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage! locks held by syz-executor381/5628: 2, last CPU#1: #0: ffffffff9aee42a0 (nfnl_subsys_ctnetlink_exp){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: nfnetlink_rcv_msg+0xa69/0x12b0 #1: ffffffff8ea74d58 (nf_conntrack_expect_lock){+...}-{3:3}, at: nf_ct_expect_iterate_net+0x38/0x180 Call Trace: dump_stack_lvl+0xe8/0x150 lockdep_rcu_suspicious+0x140/0x1d0 expect_iter_name+0xfb/0x100 nf_ct_expect_iterate_net+0xf2/0x180 ctnetlink_del_expect+0x45d/0x640 nfnetlink_rcv_msg+0xcc2/0x12b0 netlink_rcv_skb+0x226/0x4a0 nfnetlink_rcv+0x2b9/0x28c0 netlink_unicast+0x7bd/0x940 netlink_sendmsg+0x813/0xb40 ____sys_sendmsg+0x54e/0x850 ___sys_sendmsg+0x2a5/0x360 __sys_sendmsg+0x2a5/0x360 do_syscall_64+0x166/0x520 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x77/0x7f Use rcu_dereference_protected() with lockdep_is_held() on nf_conntrack_expect_lock instead, similar to expect_iter_me() in nf_conntrack_helper.c. Fixes: f01794106042 ("netfilter: nf_conntrack_expect: use expect->helper") Reported-by: syzbot+4bd730aede2791e40bdf@syzkaller.appspotmail.com Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/6aa4a377.f81106d8.2ab401.0024.GAE@google.com/T/#u Signed-off-by: Naman Gulati Signed-off-by: Pablo Neira Ayuso --- net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_netlink.c | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_netlink.c b/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_netlink.c index 579ada063b1b..4e5d7c701436 100644 --- a/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_netlink.c +++ b/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_netlink.c @@ -3392,7 +3392,8 @@ static bool expect_iter_name(struct nf_conntrack_expect *exp, void *data) struct nf_conntrack_helper *helper; const char *name = data; - helper = rcu_dereference(exp->helper); + helper = rcu_dereference_protected(exp->helper, + lockdep_is_held(&nf_conntrack_expect_lock)); if (!helper) return false; -- 2.47.3