Re: [PATCH] [RFC] netfilter: nf_conntrack: don't relase a conntrackwith non-zero refcnt

[Florian Westphal]

Andrey Vagin <avagin@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> ----
> Eric and Florian, could you look at this patch. When you say,
> that it looks good, I will ask the user to validate it.
> I can't reorder these actions, because it's reproduced on a real host
> with real users. Thanks.
> ----
> 
> nf_conntrack_free can't be called for a conntract with non-zero ref-counter,
> because it can race with nf_conntrack_find_get().

Indeed.

> A conntrack slab is created with SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU. Non-zero
> ref-conunter says that this conntrack is used now. So when we release a
> conntrack with non-zero counter, we break this assumption.
> 
> CPU1                                    CPU2
> ____nf_conntrack_find()
>                                         nf_ct_put()
>                                          destroy_conntrack()
>                                         ...
>                                         init_conntrack
>                                          __nf_conntrack_alloc (set use = 1)
> atomic_inc_not_zero(&ct->use) (use = 2)
>                                          if (!l4proto->new(ct, skb, dataoff, timeouts))
>                                           nf_conntrack_free(ct); (use = 2 !!!)
>                                         ...

Yes, I think this sequence is possible; we must not use nf_conntrack_free here.

> -	/* We overload first tuple to link into unconfirmed or dying list.*/
> -	BUG_ON(hlist_nulls_unhashed(&ct->tuplehash[IP_CT_DIR_ORIGINAL].hnnode));
> -	hlist_nulls_del_rcu(&ct->tuplehash[IP_CT_DIR_ORIGINAL].hnnode);
> +	if (!hlist_nulls_unhashed(&ct->tuplehash[IP_CT_DIR_ORIGINAL].hnnode))
> +		hlist_nulls_del_rcu(&ct->tuplehash[IP_CT_DIR_ORIGINAL].hnnode);

This is the only thing that I don't like about this patch.  Currently
all the conntracks in the system are always put on a list before they're
supposed to be visible/handled via refcnt system (unconfirmed, hash, or
dying list).

I think it would be nice if we could keep it that way.
If everything fails we could proably intoduce a 'larval' dummy list
similar to the one used by template conntracks?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/