netfilter: nf_conntrack: there maybe a bug in __nf_conntrack_confirm, when it race against get_next_corpse

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi, all:
	sorry for sending this mail again, the last mail doesn't show text
clearly.
	In function __nf_conntrack_confirm, we check the conntrack if it was
alreay dead, before insert it into hash-table. 
	we do this because if we insert an already 'dead' hash,  it will
block further use of that particular connection.
	but we don't do that right.
    let's consider the following case:
	
	cpu1                                              cpu2
__nf_conntrack_confirm                          get_next_corpse
   lock corresponding hash-list                        ....
   check nf_ct_is_dying(ct)
for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
		......
spin_lock_bh(&pcpu->lock);
		......
set_bit(IPS_DYING_BIT, &ct->status);
   nf_ct_del_from_dying_or_unconfirmed_list(ct);
spin_unlock_bh(&pcpu_lock);
   add_timer(&ct->timeout);                          }	
   ct->status |= IPS_CONFIRMD;
   __nf_conntrack_hash_insert(ct);   /* the conntrack has been seted as
dying*/


	The above case reveal two problems:
	1. we may insert a dead conntrack to hash-table, it will block
further use of that particular connection.
	2. operation on ct->status should be atomic, because it race aginst
get_next_corpse.
	  due to this reason, the operation on ct->status in
nf_nat_setup_info should be atomic as well.

	if we want to resolve the first problem, we must delete the
unconfirmed conntrack from unconfirmed-list first, then check if it is
already dead.
	Am I right to do this ?
	Appreciate any comments and reply.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html




[Index of Archives]     [Netfitler Users]     [LARTC]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Forum]

  Powered by Linux