From: Phil Sutter <phil@nwl.cc>
To: Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>
Cc: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org>,
Hamza Mahfooz <hamzamahfooz@linux.microsoft.com>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, Jozsef Kadlecsik <kadlec@netfilter.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>,
netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, coreteam@netfilter.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Soft lock-ups caused by iptables
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2025 12:22:56 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aR76EHWHhsfGoiMi@orbyte.nwl.cc> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aR7grVC-kLg76kvE@strlen.de>
On Thu, Nov 20, 2025 at 10:34:46AM +0100, Florian Westphal wrote:
> Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org> wrote:
> > > > Yes, but you also need to annotate the type of the last base chain origin,
> > > > else you might skip validation of 'chain foo' because its depth value says its
> > > > fine but new caller is coming from filter, not nat, and chain foo had
> > > > masquerade expression.
> >
> > You could also have chains being called from different levels.
>
> But thats not an issue. If you see a jump from c1 to c2, and c2
> has been validated for a level of 5, then you need to revalidate
> only if c1->depth >= 5.
>
> Do you see any issue with this? (it still lacks annotation for
> the calling basechains type, so this cannot be applied as-is):
Assuming that we don't allow jumps from one family to another, we may
get by with two bitfields which validate callbacks fill: One for base
chain types and one for hooks.
The current family would still be validated inside the callback, but
nft_chain_validate_dependency() and nft_chain_validate_hooks() called
once (I think) for each base chain after collecting. The callbacks could
also return void and leave the hooks bitmask zeroed to signal "invalid
family".
> netfilter: nf_tables: avoid chain re-validation if possible
Thanks, Phil
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-11-20 11:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-11-18 22:17 Soft lock-ups caused by iptables Hamza Mahfooz
2025-11-19 14:49 ` Phil Sutter
2025-11-19 15:58 ` Florian Westphal
2025-11-19 18:12 ` Phil Sutter
2025-11-19 23:10 ` Pablo Neira Ayuso
2025-11-20 9:34 ` Florian Westphal
2025-11-20 11:22 ` Phil Sutter [this message]
2025-11-20 20:38 ` Hamza Mahfooz
2025-11-20 20:46 ` Florian Westphal
2025-11-20 21:07 ` Pablo Neira Ayuso
2025-11-21 20:59 ` Hamza Mahfooz
2025-11-20 21:01 ` Pablo Neira Ayuso
2025-11-19 22:29 ` Hamza Mahfooz
2025-11-19 23:14 ` 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=aR76EHWHhsfGoiMi@orbyte.nwl.cc \
--to=phil@nwl.cc \
--cc=coreteam@netfilter.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=fw@strlen.de \
--cc=hamzamahfooz@linux.microsoft.com \
--cc=horms@kernel.org \
--cc=kadlec@netfilter.org \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=pablo@netfilter.org \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).