Re: [bug] __nf_ct_refresh_acct(): WARNING: at lib/list_debug.c:30 __list_add+0x7d/0xad()
From: Eric Dumazet <hidden>
Date: 2009-06-17 11:58:12
Also in:
lkml
Patrick McHardy a écrit :
Eric Dumazet wrote:quoted
IPS_CONFIRMED_BIT is set under nf_conntrack_lock (in __nf_conntrack_confirm()), we probably want to add a synchronisation under ct->lock as well, or __nf_ct_refresh_acct() could set ct->timeout.expires to extra_jiffies, while a different cpu could confirm the conntrack.Before the conntrack is confirmed, it is exclusively handled by a single CPU. I agree that we need to make sure the IPS_CONFIRMED_BIT is visible before we add the conntrack to the hash table since the lookup is lockless, but simply moving the set_bit before the hash insertion should be fine I think.
Hmm... now we could have the reverse case : __nf_conntrack_confirm() could be "interrupted" by __nf_ct_refresh_acct() index 5f72b94..22755fa 100644
--- a/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core.c
+++ b/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core.c@@ -425,6 +425,7 @@ __nf_conntrack_confirm(struct sk_buff *skb) /* Remove from unconfirmed list */ hlist_nulls_del_rcu(&ct->tuplehash[IP_CT_DIR_ORIGINAL].hnnode); + set_bit(IPS_CONFIRMED_BIT, &ct->status); __nf_conntrack_hash_insert(ct, hash, repl_hash); /* Timer relative to confirmation time, not original setting time, otherwise we'd get timer wrap in
@@ -432,7 +433,6 @@ __nf_conntrack_confirm(struct sk_buff *skb) ct->timeout.expires += jiffies;
<< What happens if another packet is handled by __nf_ct_refresh_acct here >> (seeing or not the IPS_CONFIRMED_BIT) >> add_timer(&ct->timeout); << or here ? >> atomic_inc(&ct->ct_general.use); - set_bit(IPS_CONFIRMED_BIT, &ct->status); NF_CT_STAT_INC(net, insert); spin_unlock_bh(&nf_conntrack_lock); help = nfct_help(ct); Problem is timeout.expires is either a relative or absolute timeout, and changes happen in __nf_conntrack_confirm() or __nf_ct_refresh_acct(). We must have a synchronization (an barriers), a single bit wont be enough.