Hi David, On Fri, 28 Oct 2022, David Laight wrote: > From: Jozsef Kadlecsik > > Sent: 26 October 2022 13:26 > > > > On Tue, 25 Oct 2022, Daniel Xu wrote: > > > > > I'm following up with our hallway chat yesterday about how ipset > > > hash:net,iface can easily OOM. > > > > > > Here's a quick reproducer (stolen from > > > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=199107): > > > > > > $ ipset create ACL.IN.ALL_PERMIT hash:net,iface hashsize 1048576 timeout 0 > > > $ for i in $(seq 0 100); do /sbin/ipset add ACL.IN.ALL_PERMIT 0.0.0.0/0,kaf_$i timeout 0 - > > exist; done > > > > > > This used to cause a NULL ptr deref panic before > > > https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/2b33d6ffa9e38f344418976b06 . > > > > > > Now it'll either allocate a huge amount of memory or fail a > > > vmalloc(): > > > > > > [Tue Oct 25 00:13:08 2022] ipset: vmalloc error: size 1073741848, exceeds total pages > > > <...> > > > [Tue Oct 25 00:13:08 2022] Call Trace: > > > [Tue Oct 25 00:13:08 2022] <TASK> > > > [Tue Oct 25 00:13:08 2022] dump_stack_lvl+0x48/0x60 > > > [Tue Oct 25 00:13:08 2022] warn_alloc+0x155/0x180 > > > [Tue Oct 25 00:13:08 2022] __vmalloc_node_range+0x72a/0x760 > > > [Tue Oct 25 00:13:08 2022] ? hash_netiface4_add+0x7c0/0xb20 > > > [Tue Oct 25 00:13:08 2022] ? __kmalloc_large_node+0x4a/0x90 > > > [Tue Oct 25 00:13:08 2022] kvmalloc_node+0xa6/0xd0 > > > [Tue Oct 25 00:13:08 2022] ? hash_netiface4_resize+0x99/0x710 > > > <...> > > > > > > Note that this behavior is somewhat documented > > > (https://ipset.netfilter.org/ipset.man.html): > > > > > > > The internal restriction of the hash:net,iface set type is that the same > > > > network prefix cannot be stored with more than 64 different interfaces > > > > in a single set. > > > > > > I'm not sure how hard it would be to enforce a limit, but I think it would > > > be a bit better to error than allocate many GBs of memory. > > > > That's a bug, actually the limit is not enforced in spite of the > > documentation. The next patch fixes it and I'm going to submit to Pablo: > > > > diff --git a/net/netfilter/ipset/ip_set_hash_gen.h b/net/netfilter/ipset/ip_set_hash_gen.h > > index 6e391308431d..3f8853ed32e9 100644 > > --- a/net/netfilter/ipset/ip_set_hash_gen.h > > +++ b/net/netfilter/ipset/ip_set_hash_gen.h > > @@ -61,10 +61,6 @@ tune_bucketsize(u8 curr, u32 multi) > > */ > > return n > curr && n <= AHASH_MAX_TUNED ? n : curr; > > } > > -#define TUNE_BUCKETSIZE(h, multi) \ > > - ((h)->bucketsize = tune_bucketsize((h)->bucketsize, multi)) > > -#else > > -#define TUNE_BUCKETSIZE(h, multi) > > #endif > > > > /* A hash bucket */ > > @@ -936,7 +932,11 @@ mtype_add(struct ip_set *set, void *value, const struct ip_set_ext *ext, > > goto set_full; > > /* Create a new slot */ > > if (n->pos >= n->size) { > > - TUNE_BUCKETSIZE(h, multi); > > +#ifdef IP_SET_HASH_WITH_MULTI > > + if (h->bucketsize >= AHASH_MAX_TUNED) > > + goto set_full; > > + h->bucketsize = tune_bucketsize(h->bucketsize, multi); > > +#endif > > AFAICT this is the only call of tune_bucketsize(). > It is defined just above TUNE_BUCKETSIZE as: > static u8 > tune_bucketsize(u8 curr, u32 multi) > { > u32 n; > > if (multi < curr) > return curr; > > n = curr + AHASH_INIT_SIZE; > /* Currently, at listing one hash bucket must fit into a message. > * Therefore we have a hard limit here. > */ > return n > curr && n <= AHASH_MAX_TUNED ? n : curr; > } > > If I'm reading it correctly this is just: > return curr >= multi || curr >= 64 ? curr : curr + 2; Actually, because a new condition was added before calling the function, the whole thing could simply be changed to #ifdef IP_SET_HASH_WITH_MULTI if (h->bucketsize >= AHASH_MAX_TUNED) goto set_full; else if (h->bucketsize < multi) h->bucketsize += AHASH_INIT_SIZE; #endif I'm going to submit a new patch. > (the 'n > curr' test is unconditionally true). Yes, correct. > The extra check is limiting it to 12 (AHASH_MAX_TUNED) not 64. No, because AHASH_MAX_TUNED is defined to be 64. > Quite why the change makes a significant difference to the validity of > the kvalloc() is another matter. Changing a multiplier from 64 to 12 > seems unlikely to be that significant - if it is you wouldn't want to be > multiplying by 12. We are hashing elements into the same bucket and the original code continued to resize the hash without a real limit (expect the memory). The new condition checking the bucket size was critical here. > I've not looked what 'multi' is, but I'm sort of surprised it isn't > used as the new bucketsize. If 'multi' were used as the new size then bucketsize were shrinked. The expected general use case is to build up sets containing attackers and the peaks are common, therefore there's no point to shrink back. The maximal number of elements is defined at set creation time and cannot be added more. > Also it doesn't really look right to have lots of static functions > in a .h file? That .h file is a template to generate the code for all of the individual functions of the different hash types, therefore it contains lot of static function definitions. Best regards, Jozsef - E-mail : kadlec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, kadlecsik.jozsef@xxxxxxxxx PGP key : https://wigner.hu/~kadlec/pgp_public_key.txt Address : Wigner Research Centre for Physics H-1525 Budapest 114, POB. 49, Hungary
