Ani Sinha <ani@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Coming back to this crash, I see something interesting in the > conntrack code in linux 3.4.109 (a supported kernel version). I see > that the hash table manipulations are protected by a spinlock. Also > lookups/reads are protected by RCU. However allocation and > deallocation of conntrack objects happen outside of both the locks. > It seems to me that a conntrack object can be deallocated and a new > object can be allocated and initialized within the same RCU grace > period, while the hash table is being read. Yes. We need to use SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU instead of kfree_rcu because there could be hundreds of thousands of alloc/free pairs within a short time period. > It looks like a bug to me. No, as long as readers detect object reuse. > > Looking upstream, I see a couple of patches which fixes race condition > > around the use of the conntrack hash table with RCU (lock free read) > > primitives : > > > > commit c6825c0976fa7893692e0e43b09740b419b23c09 > > Author: Andrey Vagin <avagin@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Date: Wed Jan 29 19:34:14 2014 +0100 > > netfilter: nf_conntrack: fix RCU race in nf_conntrack_find_get > > > > and a followup patch : > > > > commit e53376bef2cd97d3e3f61fdc677fb8da7d03d0da > > Author: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Date: Mon Feb 3 20:01:53 2014 +0100 > > netfilter: nf_conntrack: don't release a conntrack with non-zero refcnt > > These for instance fix such bugs. -- 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
