From: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org>
To: Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@kernel.org>
Cc: kadlec@netfilter.org, fw@strlen.de,
netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, coreteam@netfilter.org,
jiejiang@chromium.org, jasongustaman@chromium.org,
garrick@chromium.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] netfilter: conntrack: fix wrong ct->timeout value
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2023 10:17:32 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZD5SHAuK23E+DD2C@calendula> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZDy/9WEIQRyIPSNo@google.com>
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 11:41:41AM +0800, Tzung-Bi Shih wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 10:12:14AM +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 11:52:02AM +0800, Tzung-Bi Shih wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 11:04:24AM +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 11:23:11AM +0800, Tzung-Bi Shih wrote:
> > > > > nf_ct_expires() got called by userspace program. And the return
> > > > > value (which means the remaining timeout) will be the parameter for
> > > > > the next ctnetlink_change_timeout().
> > > >
> > > > Unconfirmed conntrack is owned by the packet that refers to it, it is
> > > > not yet in the hashes. I don't see how concurrent access to the
> > > > timeout might occur.
> > > >
> > > > Or are you referring to a different scenario that triggers the partial
> > > > state?
> > >
> > > I think it isn't a concurrent access. We observed that userspace program
> > > reads the remaining timeout and sets it back for unconfirmed conntrack.
> > >
> > > Conceptually, it looks like:
> > > timeout = nf_ct_expires(...); (1)
> > > ctnetlink_change_timeout(...timeout);
> >
> > How could this possibly happen?
> >
> > nf_ct_expires() is called from:
> >
> > - ctnetlink_dump_timeout(), this is netlink dump path, since:
> >
> > commit 1397af5bfd7d32b0cf2adb70a78c9a9e8f11d912
> > Author: Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>
> > Date: Mon Apr 11 13:01:18 2022 +0200
> >
> > netfilter: conntrack: remove the percpu dying list
> >
> > it is not possible to do any listing of unconfirmed, and that is fine.
> >
> > As I said, nfnetlink_queue operates with an unconfirmed conntrack with
> > owns exclusively, which is not in the hashes.
>
> I applied the following patches on top of v6.3-rc5[5].
>
> As you suggested:
>
> diff --git a/include/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core.h b/include/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core.h
> index 71d1269fe4d4..3384859a8921 100644
> --- a/include/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core.h
> +++ b/include/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core.h
> @@ -89,7 +89,11 @@ static inline void __nf_ct_set_timeout(struct nf_conn *ct, u64 timeout)
> {
> if (timeout > INT_MAX)
> timeout = INT_MAX;
> - WRITE_ONCE(ct->timeout, nfct_time_stamp + (u32)timeout);
> +
> + if (nf_ct_is_confirmed(ct))
> + WRITE_ONCE(ct->timeout, nfct_time_stamp + (u32)timeout);
> + else
> + ct->timeout = (u32)timeout;
> }
>
> And this patch for dumping the debug information:
>
> diff --git a/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_netlink.c b/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_netlink.c
> index bfc3aaa2c872..b4c016ff07e9 100644
> --- a/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_netlink.c
> +++ b/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_netlink.c
> @@ -178,6 +178,11 @@ static int ctnetlink_dump_timeout(struct sk_buff *skb, const struct nf_conn *ct,
> {
> long timeout = nf_ct_expires(ct) / HZ;
>
> + if (!nf_ct_is_confirmed(ct)) {
> + dump_stack();
> + printk(KERN_ERR "===ct->timeout=%u===timeout=%ld\n", ct->timeout, timeout);
> + }
> +
> if (skip_zero && timeout == 0)
> return 0;
>
> And here is the trimmed dmesg:
>
> ===ct->timeout=30000===timeout=0
> [...] 6.3.0-rc5-00675-ged0c7cbf5b2c [...]
> Call Trace:
> <TASK>
> dump_stack_lvl
> ctnetlink_dump_timeout
> __ctnetlink_glue_build
> ctnetlink_glue_build
> __nfqnl_enqueue_packet
> nf_queue
> nf_hook_slow
> ip_mc_output
> ? __pfx_ip_finish_output
> ip_send_skb
> ? __pfx_dst_output
> udp_send_skb
> udp_sendmsg
> ? __pfx_ip_generic_getfrag
> sock_sendmsg
>
> As the dmesg showed, the unconfirmed conntrack did call into
> ctnetlink_dump_timeout(). As a result, the value returned from
> nf_ct_expires() is always 0 in the case (because the `ct->timeout` got
> subtracted by current timestamp `nfct_time_stamp`[4]).
Oh, interesting.
Thanks for digging deeper into this issue.
Then, on top of what I suggest, my recommendation is to skip the
ctnetlink_dump_timeout() call for !nf_ct_confirmed(ct).
Or, you add some special handling for ctnetlink_dump_timeout() for the
!nf_ct_confirmed(ct) case.
Let me know, thanks.
> [4]: https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.3-rc6/source/include/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack.h#L296
> [5]: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/third_party/kernel/+/refs/heads/merge/continuous/chromeos-kernelupstream-6.3-rc5
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-04-18 8:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-04-10 6:09 [PATCH] netfilter: conntrack: fix wrong ct->timeout value Tzung-Bi Shih
2023-04-10 8:33 ` Pablo Neira Ayuso
2023-04-10 9:31 ` Pablo Neira Ayuso
2023-04-10 9:59 ` Tzung-Bi Shih
2023-04-12 22:56 ` Pablo Neira Ayuso
2023-04-13 3:23 ` Tzung-Bi Shih
2023-04-13 9:04 ` Pablo Neira Ayuso
2023-04-14 3:52 ` Tzung-Bi Shih
2023-04-14 8:12 ` Pablo Neira Ayuso
2023-04-17 3:41 ` Tzung-Bi Shih
2023-04-18 8:17 ` Pablo Neira Ayuso [this message]
2023-04-19 5:20 ` Tzung-Bi Shih
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=ZD5SHAuK23E+DD2C@calendula \
--to=pablo@netfilter.org \
--cc=coreteam@netfilter.org \
--cc=fw@strlen.de \
--cc=garrick@chromium.org \
--cc=jasongustaman@chromium.org \
--cc=jiejiang@chromium.org \
--cc=kadlec@netfilter.org \
--cc=netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tzungbi@kernel.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