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: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 10:12:14 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZDkK3ktVcBaykTVT@calendula> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZDjN4gyv0x1aewgm@google.com>
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.
- nf_ct_expires() calls from xt and nft matches are irrelevant:
net/netfilter/nft_ct.c: *dest = jiffies_to_msecs(nf_ct_expires(ct));
net/netfilter/xt_conntrack.c: unsigned long expires = nf_ct_expires(ct) / HZ;
- there is the garbage collector, but that only works with conntrack
entries in the hashes:
net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core.c: expires = clamp(nf_ct_expires(tmp), GC_SCAN_INTERVAL_MIN, GC_SCAN_INTERVAL_CLAMP);
- there is also /proc interface, but that only works with conntrack
entries in the hashes:
net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_standalone.c: seq_printf(s, "%ld ", nf_ct_expires(ct) / HZ);
> At (1), `nfct_time_stamp` is wrongly involved in the calculation[4] because
> the conntrack is unconfirmed. The `ct->timeout` is an internal but not a
> timestamp.
I can see there are two possible states for ct->timeout, thanks for
explaining this again.
> As a result, ctnetlink_change_timeout() sets the wrong value to `ct->timeout`.
>
> [4]: https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.3-rc6/source/include/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack.h#L296
>
> > > 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.
>
> Again, that's why v1 separates all `ct->timeout` accesses.
>
> If the conntrack is confirmed:
> - `ct->timeout` is a timestamp.
> - `nfct_time_stamp` should be involved when getting/setting `ct->timeout`.
>
> If the conntrack is unconfirmed:
> - `ct->timeout` is an interval.
> - `nfct_time_stamp` shouldn't be involved.
>
> Only separate `ct->timeout` access in __nf_ct_set_timeout() is obviously
> insufficient. I would suggest either take care of all `ct->timeout`
> accesses as v1 or at least change both __nf_ct_set_timeout() and
> nf_ct_expires().
it does not even make sense to use WRITE_ONCE from
__nf_conntrack_confirm(), see:
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core.c#L1260
because the unconfirmed conntrack object is owned exclusively by the packet.
> In the latter case, it looks fine in our environment. However, I'm not
> sure if any hidden cases we haven't seen.
Maybe you have an old kernel?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-04-14 8:12 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 [this message]
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=ZDkK3ktVcBaykTVT@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