Re: BUG? a possible race between htable_find_get() and htable_put()

[Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 966 bytes --]

Patrick McHardy wrote:
> 홍신 shin hong wrote:
>> Hi. I am reporting a suspected race between htable_find_get()
>> and htable_put() in net/netfilter/xt_hashlimit.c.
>>
>> I found this issue while I read the code so that it might not realistic.
>> But, please examine the code to check possibility of race condition.
>>
>> htable_put() first updates hinfo->use and then unlink the object from the list.
>> But, htable_find_get() first searches an object from the list,
>> and then updates hinfo->use.
> 
> Nice catch, this does indeed look like a bug. The entire locking
> concept seems a bit strange, we neither need an atomic_t for the
> reference count nor two locks to protect the list. This patch
> changes the code to use the hashlimit_mutex for list and reference
> count protection.
> 
> I'll commit this later unless someone can spot further bugs :)

Locking around list removal and destruction was missing from the
previous patch, fixed version attached.

[-- Attachment #2: x --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 4882 bytes --]

diff --git a/net/netfilter/xt_hashlimit.c b/net/netfilter/xt_hashlimit.c
index dd16e40..4a72044 100644
--- a/net/netfilter/xt_hashlimit.c
+++ b/net/netfilter/xt_hashlimit.c
@@ -79,7 +79,7 @@ struct dsthash_ent {
 
 struct xt_hashlimit_htable {
 	struct hlist_node node;		/* global list of all htables */
-	atomic_t use;
+	int use;
 	u_int8_t family;
 
 	struct hashlimit_cfg1 cfg;	/* config */
@@ -97,8 +97,7 @@ struct xt_hashlimit_htable {
 	struct hlist_head hash[0];	/* hashtable itself */
 };
 
-static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(hashlimit_lock);	/* protects htables list */
-static DEFINE_MUTEX(hlimit_mutex);	/* additional checkentry protection */
+static DEFINE_MUTEX(hashlimit_mutex);	/* protects htables list */
 static HLIST_HEAD(hashlimit_htables);
 static struct kmem_cache *hashlimit_cachep __read_mostly;
 
@@ -232,7 +231,7 @@ static int htable_create_v0(struct xt_hashlimit_info *minfo, u_int8_t family)
 	for (i = 0; i < hinfo->cfg.size; i++)
 		INIT_HLIST_HEAD(&hinfo->hash[i]);
 
-	atomic_set(&hinfo->use, 1);
+	hinfo->use = 1;
 	hinfo->count = 0;
 	hinfo->family = family;
 	hinfo->rnd_initialized = 0;
@@ -250,9 +249,9 @@ static int htable_create_v0(struct xt_hashlimit_info *minfo, u_int8_t family)
 	hinfo->timer.expires = jiffies + msecs_to_jiffies(hinfo->cfg.gc_interval);
 	add_timer(&hinfo->timer);
 
-	spin_lock_bh(&hashlimit_lock);
+	mutex_lock(&hashlimit_mutex);
 	hlist_add_head(&hinfo->node, &hashlimit_htables);
-	spin_unlock_bh(&hashlimit_lock);
+	mutex_unlock(&hashlimit_mutex);
 
 	return 0;
 }
@@ -293,7 +292,7 @@ static int htable_create(struct xt_hashlimit_mtinfo1 *minfo, u_int8_t family)
 	for (i = 0; i < hinfo->cfg.size; i++)
 		INIT_HLIST_HEAD(&hinfo->hash[i]);
 
-	atomic_set(&hinfo->use, 1);
+	hinfo->use = 1;
 	hinfo->count = 0;
 	hinfo->family = family;
 	hinfo->rnd_initialized = 0;
@@ -312,9 +311,9 @@ static int htable_create(struct xt_hashlimit_mtinfo1 *minfo, u_int8_t family)
 	hinfo->timer.expires = jiffies + msecs_to_jiffies(hinfo->cfg.gc_interval);
 	add_timer(&hinfo->timer);
 
-	spin_lock_bh(&hashlimit_lock);
+	mutex_lock(&hashlimit_mutex);
 	hlist_add_head(&hinfo->node, &hashlimit_htables);
-	spin_unlock_bh(&hashlimit_lock);
+	mutex_unlock(&hashlimit_mutex);
 
 	return 0;
 }
@@ -380,27 +379,24 @@ static struct xt_hashlimit_htable *htable_find_get(const char *name,
 	struct xt_hashlimit_htable *hinfo;
 	struct hlist_node *pos;
 
-	spin_lock_bh(&hashlimit_lock);
 	hlist_for_each_entry(hinfo, pos, &hashlimit_htables, node) {
 		if (!strcmp(name, hinfo->pde->name) &&
 		    hinfo->family == family) {
-			atomic_inc(&hinfo->use);
-			spin_unlock_bh(&hashlimit_lock);
+			hinfo->use++;
 			return hinfo;
 		}
 	}
-	spin_unlock_bh(&hashlimit_lock);
 	return NULL;
 }
 
 static void htable_put(struct xt_hashlimit_htable *hinfo)
 {
-	if (atomic_dec_and_test(&hinfo->use)) {
-		spin_lock_bh(&hashlimit_lock);
+	mutex_lock(&hashlimit_mutex);
+	if (--hinfo->use == 0) {
 		hlist_del(&hinfo->node);
-		spin_unlock_bh(&hashlimit_lock);
 		htable_destroy(hinfo);
 	}
+	mutex_unlock(&hashlimit_mutex);
 }
 
 /* The algorithm used is the Simple Token Bucket Filter (TBF)
@@ -687,19 +683,13 @@ static bool hashlimit_mt_check_v0(const struct xt_mtchk_param *par)
 	if (r->name[sizeof(r->name) - 1] != '\0')
 		return false;
 
-	/* This is the best we've got: We cannot release and re-grab lock,
-	 * since checkentry() is called before x_tables.c grabs xt_mutex.
-	 * We also cannot grab the hashtable spinlock, since htable_create will
-	 * call vmalloc, and that can sleep.  And we cannot just re-search
-	 * the list of htable's in htable_create(), since then we would
-	 * create duplicate proc files. -HW */
-	mutex_lock(&hlimit_mutex);
+	mutex_lock(&hashlimit_mutex);
 	r->hinfo = htable_find_get(r->name, par->match->family);
 	if (!r->hinfo && htable_create_v0(r, par->match->family) != 0) {
-		mutex_unlock(&hlimit_mutex);
+		mutex_unlock(&hashlimit_mutex);
 		return false;
 	}
-	mutex_unlock(&hlimit_mutex);
+	mutex_unlock(&hashlimit_mutex);
 
 	return true;
 }
@@ -728,19 +718,13 @@ static bool hashlimit_mt_check(const struct xt_mtchk_param *par)
 			return false;
 	}
 
-	/* This is the best we've got: We cannot release and re-grab lock,
-	 * since checkentry() is called before x_tables.c grabs xt_mutex.
-	 * We also cannot grab the hashtable spinlock, since htable_create will
-	 * call vmalloc, and that can sleep.  And we cannot just re-search
-	 * the list of htable's in htable_create(), since then we would
-	 * create duplicate proc files. -HW */
-	mutex_lock(&hlimit_mutex);
+	mutex_lock(&hashlimit_mutex);
 	info->hinfo = htable_find_get(info->name, par->match->family);
 	if (!info->hinfo && htable_create(info, par->match->family) != 0) {
-		mutex_unlock(&hlimit_mutex);
+		mutex_unlock(&hashlimit_mutex);
 		return false;
 	}
-	mutex_unlock(&hlimit_mutex);
+	mutex_unlock(&hashlimit_mutex);
 	return true;
 }