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: Thu, 13 Apr 2023 11:04:24 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZDfFmMfS406teiUj@calendula> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZDd1n1IHEu9+HVSS@google.com>
On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 11:23:11AM +0800, Tzung-Bi Shih wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 12:56:01AM +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> > Maybe just do this special handling:
> >
> > + if (nf_ct_is_confirmed(ct))
> > + WRITE_ONCE(ct->timeout, timeout + nfct_time_stamp);
> > + else
> > + WRITE_ONCE(ct->timeout, timeout);
> >
> > for ctnetlink_change_timeout().
> >
> > Just replace __nf_ct_set_timeout(), by this code above in
> > nf_conntrack_netlink.c? I think the __nf_ct_set_timeout() helper is
> > not very useful.
>
> I don't quite understand the message above.
>
> Calling path in v6.3-rc6:
> ctnetlink_change_timeout() in net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_netlink.c
> -> __nf_ct_change_timeout() in net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core.c
> -> __nf_ct_set_timeout() in include/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core.h
>
> To clarify, which one did you mean:
>
> Option 1: replace the __nf_ct_change_timeout() invocation to the special
> handling in net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_netlink.c
> Option 2: replace the __nf_ct_set_timeout() invocation to the special
> handling in net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core.c
> Option 3: put the special handling in __nf_ct_set_timeout() in
> include/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core.h
>
> In either case, the fix would be a subset of v1.
Yes, I think this is Option 3:
diff --git a/include/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core.h b/include/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core.h
index 71d1269fe4d4..9c2cd69bbdc6 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;
}
int __nf_ct_change_timeout(struct nf_conn *ct, u64 cta_timeout);
Note:
WRITE_ONCE(ct->timeout, (u32)timeout);
is not required, because unconfirmed conntrack object is owned by the
packet (not yet in the hashes).
BTW, not related to this patch, but I would like to understand why
this __nf_ct_set_timeout() function is inline, but that is a different
issue.
> I'm not sure other use cases. In our environment, we observed an
> inconsistent state by a partial fix of v1.
Thanks for explaining, extending patch description would be good.
> 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?
> As you can see in [4], if this happens on an unconfirmed conntrack, the
> `nfct_time_stamp` would be wrongly invoved in the calculation again.
> That's why we take care of all `ct->timeout` accesses in v1.
If you are observing a partial state, that is a different issue and I
think it deserves a separated patch with a description? Probably
including KCSAN splat if this is what you used to catch the partial
state.
Thanks!
> [4]: https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.3-rc6/source/include/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack.h#L296
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-04-13 9:05 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 [this message]
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
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=ZDfFmMfS406teiUj@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