Two possible error conditions were caught during an extended testing
session, and by a build robot. These patches fix the two issues (a
missing handler when config is changed, and a potential NULL
dereference).
Aaron Conole (2):
netfilter: Fix potential null pointer dereference
nf_set_hooks_head: acommodate different kconfig
net/netfilter/core.c | 6 +++++-
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
--
2.5.5
It's possible for nf_hook_entry_head to return NULL. If two
nf_unregister_net_hook calls happen simultaneously with a single hook
entry in the list, both will enter the nf_hook_mutex critical section.
The first will successfully delete the head, but the second will see
this NULL pointer and attempt to dereference.
This fix ensures that no null pointer dereference could occur when such
a condition happens.
Signed-off-by: Aaron Conole <redacted>
---
net/netfilter/core.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
When CONFIG_NETFILTER_INGRESS is unset (or no), we need to handle
the request for registration properly by dropping the hook. This
releases the entry during the set.
Signed-off-by: Aaron Conole <redacted>
---
net/netfilter/core.c | 15 +++++++++++----
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
@@ -90,10 +90,12 @@ static void nf_set_hooks_head(struct net *net, const struct nf_hook_ops *reg,{switch(reg->pf){caseNFPROTO_NETDEV:+#ifdef CONFIG_NETFILTER_INGRESS/* We already checked in nf_register_net_hook() that this is*usedfromingress.*/rcu_assign_pointer(reg->dev->nf_hooks_ingress,entry);+#endifbreak;default:rcu_assign_pointer(net->nf.hooks[reg->pf][reg->hooknum],
@@ -107,10 +109,15 @@ int nf_register_net_hook(struct net *net, const struct nf_hook_ops *reg)structnf_hook_entry*hooks_entry;structnf_hook_entry*entry;-if(reg->pf==NFPROTO_NETDEV&&-(reg->hooknum!=NF_NETDEV_INGRESS||-!reg->dev||dev_net(reg->dev)!=net))-return-EINVAL;+if(reg->pf==NFPROTO_NETDEV){+#ifndef CONFIG_NETFILTER_INGRESS+if(reg->hooknum==NF_NETDEV_INGRESS)+return-EOPNOTSUPP;+#endif+if(reg->hooknum!=NF_NETDEV_INGRESS||+!reg->dev||dev_net(reg->dev)!=net)+return-EINVAL;+}entry=kmalloc(sizeof(*entry),GFP_KERNEL);if(!entry)
From: Eric Dumazet <hidden> Date: 2016-09-28 13:35:38
On Wed, 2016-09-28 at 09:12 -0400, Aaron Conole wrote:
quoted hunk
It's possible for nf_hook_entry_head to return NULL. If two
nf_unregister_net_hook calls happen simultaneously with a single hook
entry in the list, both will enter the nf_hook_mutex critical section.
The first will successfully delete the head, but the second will see
this NULL pointer and attempt to dereference.
This fix ensures that no null pointer dereference could occur when such
a condition happens.
Signed-off-by: Aaron Conole <redacted>
---
net/netfilter/core.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
When was the bug added exactly ?
For all bug fixes, you need to add a Fixes: tag.
Like :
Fixes: e3b37f11e6e4 ("netfilter: replace list_head with single linked list")
So that 100 different people in stable teams do not have to do the archeology themselves ...
Thanks.
On Wed, 2016-09-28 at 09:12 -0400, Aaron Conole wrote:
quoted
It's possible for nf_hook_entry_head to return NULL. If two
nf_unregister_net_hook calls happen simultaneously with a single hook
entry in the list, both will enter the nf_hook_mutex critical section.
The first will successfully delete the head, but the second will see
this NULL pointer and attempt to dereference.
This fix ensures that no null pointer dereference could occur when such
a condition happens.
Signed-off-by: Aaron Conole <redacted>
---
net/netfilter/core.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
For all bug fixes, you need to add a Fixes: tag.
Like :
Fixes: e3b37f11e6e4 ("netfilter: replace list_head with single linked list")
I would but it's in nf-next tree, and I'm not sure how pulls go. If
they are done via patch imports, then the sha sums will be wrong and the
commit message will be misleading. If the sums are preserved, then I
can resubmit with this information.
So that 100 different people in stable teams do not have to do the
archeology themselves ...
Thanks.
From: Eric Dumazet <hidden> Date: 2016-09-28 15:30:03
On Wed, 2016-09-28 at 10:56 -0400, Aaron Conole wrote:
Eric Dumazet [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
On Wed, 2016-09-28 at 09:12 -0400, Aaron Conole wrote:
quoted
It's possible for nf_hook_entry_head to return NULL. If two
nf_unregister_net_hook calls happen simultaneously with a single hook
entry in the list, both will enter the nf_hook_mutex critical section.
The first will successfully delete the head, but the second will see
this NULL pointer and attempt to dereference.
This fix ensures that no null pointer dereference could occur when such
a condition happens.
Signed-off-by: Aaron Conole <redacted>
---
net/netfilter/core.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
For all bug fixes, you need to add a Fixes: tag.
Like :
Fixes: e3b37f11e6e4 ("netfilter: replace list_head with single linked list")
I would but it's in nf-next tree, and I'm not sure how pulls go. If
they are done via patch imports, then the sha sums will be wrong and the
commit message will be misleading. If the sums are preserved, then I
can resubmit with this information.
On Wed, 2016-09-28 at 10:56 -0400, Aaron Conole wrote:
quoted
Eric Dumazet [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
On Wed, 2016-09-28 at 09:12 -0400, Aaron Conole wrote:
quoted
It's possible for nf_hook_entry_head to return NULL. If two
nf_unregister_net_hook calls happen simultaneously with a single hook
entry in the list, both will enter the nf_hook_mutex critical section.
The first will successfully delete the head, but the second will see
this NULL pointer and attempt to dereference.
This fix ensures that no null pointer dereference could occur when such
a condition happens.
Signed-off-by: Aaron Conole <redacted>
---
net/netfilter/core.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
For all bug fixes, you need to add a Fixes: tag.
Like :
Fixes: e3b37f11e6e4 ("netfilter: replace list_head with single linked list")
I would but it's in nf-next tree, and I'm not sure how pulls go. If
they are done via patch imports, then the sha sums will be wrong and the
commit message will be misleading. If the sums are preserved, then I
can resubmit with this information.