On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 10:55:32PM +0200, Sven Wegener wrote:
> The code that hashes and unhashes connections from the connection table
> is missing locking of the connection being modified, which opens up a
> race condition and results in memory corruption when this race condition
> is hit.
>
> Here is what happens in pretty verbose form:
>
> CPU 0 CPU 1
> ------------ ------------
> An active connection is terminated and
> we schedule ip_vs_conn_expire() on this
> CPU to expire this connection.
>
> IRQ assignment is changed to this CPU,
> but the expire timer stays scheduled on
> the other CPU.
>
> New connection from same ip:port comes
> in right before the timer expires, we
> find the inactive connection in our
> connection table and get a reference to
> it. We proper lock the connection in
> tcp_state_transition() and read the
> connection flags in set_tcp_state().
>
> ip_vs_conn_expire() gets called, we
> unhash the connection from our
> connection table and remove the hashed
> flag in ip_vs_conn_unhash(), without
> proper locking!
>
> While still holding proper locks we
> write the connection flags in
> set_tcp_state() and this sets the hashed
> flag again.
>
> ip_vs_conn_expire() fails to expire the
> connection, because the other CPU has
> incremented the reference count. We try
> to re-insert the connection into our
> connection table, but this fails in
> ip_vs_conn_hash(), because the hashed
> flag has been set by the other CPU. We
> re-schedule execution of
> ip_vs_conn_expire(). Now this connection
> has the hashed flag set, but isn't
> actually hashed in our connection table
> and has a dangling list_head.
>
> We drop the reference we held on the
> connection and schedule the expire timer
> for timeouting the connection on this
> CPU. Further packets won't be able to
> find this connection in our connection
> table.
>
> ip_vs_conn_expire() gets called again,
> we think it's already hashed, but the
> list_head is dangling and while removing
> the connection from our connection table
> we write to the memory location where
> this list_head points to.
>
> The result will probably be a kernel oops at some other point in time.
Nice analysis.
> Signed-off-by: Sven Wegener <sven.wegener@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxx
Acked-by: Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_conn.c | 4 ++++
> 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> This race condition is pretty subtle, but it can be triggered remotely.
> It needs the IRQ assignment change or another circumstance where packets
> coming from the same ip:port for the same service are being processed on
> different CPUs. And it involves hitting the exact time at which
> ip_vs_conn_expire() gets called. It can be avoided by making sure that
> all packets from one connection are always processed on the same CPU and
> can be made harder to exploit by changing the connection timeouts to
> some custom values.
>
> diff --git a/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_conn.c b/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_conn.c
> index d8f7e8e..ff04e9e 100644
> --- a/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_conn.c
> +++ b/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_conn.c
> @@ -162,6 +162,7 @@ static inline int ip_vs_conn_hash(struct ip_vs_conn *cp)
> hash = ip_vs_conn_hashkey(cp->af, cp->protocol, &cp->caddr, cp->cport);
>
> ct_write_lock(hash);
> + spin_lock(&cp->lock);
>
> if (!(cp->flags & IP_VS_CONN_F_HASHED)) {
> list_add(&cp->c_list, &ip_vs_conn_tab[hash]);
> @@ -174,6 +175,7 @@ static inline int ip_vs_conn_hash(struct ip_vs_conn *cp)
> ret = 0;
> }
>
> + spin_unlock(&cp->lock);
> ct_write_unlock(hash);
>
> return ret;
> @@ -193,6 +195,7 @@ static inline int ip_vs_conn_unhash(struct ip_vs_conn *cp)
> hash = ip_vs_conn_hashkey(cp->af, cp->protocol, &cp->caddr, cp->cport);
>
> ct_write_lock(hash);
> + spin_lock(&cp->lock);
>
> if (cp->flags & IP_VS_CONN_F_HASHED) {
> list_del(&cp->c_list);
> @@ -202,6 +205,7 @@ static inline int ip_vs_conn_unhash(struct ip_vs_conn *cp)
> } else
> ret = 0;
>
> + spin_unlock(&cp->lock);
> ct_write_unlock(hash);
>
> return ret;
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe lvs-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
