From: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@xxxxxxxxx>
[ Upstream commit 99b79c3900d4627672c85d9f344b5b0f06bc2a4d ]
Before releasing the global mutex, we only unlink the hashtable
from the hash list, its proc file is still not unregistered at
this point. So syzbot could trigger a race condition where a
parallel htable_create() could register the same file immediately
after the mutex is released.
Move htable_remove_proc_entry() back to mutex protection to
fix this. And, fold htable_destroy() into htable_put() to make
the code slightly easier to understand.
Reported-and-tested-by: syzbot+d195fd3b9a364ddd6731@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fixes: c4a3922d2d20 ("netfilter: xt_hashlimit: reduce hashlimit_mutex scope for htable_put()")
Signed-off-by: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
net/netfilter/xt_hashlimit.c | 16 ++++++----------
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/netfilter/xt_hashlimit.c b/net/netfilter/xt_hashlimit.c
index 7a2c4b8408c49..8c835ad637290 100644
--- a/net/netfilter/xt_hashlimit.c
+++ b/net/netfilter/xt_hashlimit.c
@@ -402,15 +402,6 @@ static void htable_remove_proc_entry(struct xt_hashlimit_htable *hinfo)
remove_proc_entry(hinfo->name, parent);
}
-static void htable_destroy(struct xt_hashlimit_htable *hinfo)
-{
- cancel_delayed_work_sync(&hinfo->gc_work);
- htable_remove_proc_entry(hinfo);
- htable_selective_cleanup(hinfo, true);
- kfree(hinfo->name);
- vfree(hinfo);
-}
-
static struct xt_hashlimit_htable *htable_find_get(struct net *net,
const char *name,
u_int8_t family)
@@ -432,8 +423,13 @@ static void htable_put(struct xt_hashlimit_htable *hinfo)
{
if (refcount_dec_and_mutex_lock(&hinfo->use, &hashlimit_mutex)) {
hlist_del(&hinfo->node);
+ htable_remove_proc_entry(hinfo);
mutex_unlock(&hashlimit_mutex);
- htable_destroy(hinfo);
+
+ cancel_delayed_work_sync(&hinfo->gc_work);
+ htable_selective_cleanup(hinfo, true);
+ kfree(hinfo->name);
+ vfree(hinfo);
}
}
--
2.20.1
