Thread (3 messages) 3 messages, 2 authors, 2023-02-27

Re: [PATCH] netfilter: nf_tables: always synchronize with readers before releasing tables

From: Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>
Date: 2023-02-27 12:44:08

Possibly related (same subject, not in this thread)

Alexander Atanasov [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
general protection fault, probably for non-canonical
address 0xdead000000000115: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP NOPTI
RIP: 0010:__nf_tables_dump_rules+0x10d/0x170 [nf_tables]

__nf_tables_dump_rules runs under rcu_read_lock while __nft_release_table
is called from nf_tables_exit_net. commit_mutex is held inside
nf_tables_exit_net but this is not enough to guard against
lockless readers. When __nft_release_table does list_del(&rule->list)
next ptr is poisoned and it crashes while walking the list.

Before calling __nft_release_tables all lockless readers must be done -
to ensure this a call to synchronize_rcu() is required.

nf_tables_exit_net does this in case there is something to abort
inside __nf_tables_abort but it does not do so otherwise.
Fix this by add the missing synchronize_rcu() call before calling
__nft_release_table in the nothing to abort case.

Fixes: 6001a930ce03 ("netfilter: nftables: introduce table ownership")
Signed-off-by: Alexander Atanasov <redacted>
---
 net/netfilter/nf_tables_api.c | 6 ++++++
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
diff --git a/net/netfilter/nf_tables_api.c b/net/netfilter/nf_tables_api.c
index d73edbd4eec4..849523ece109 100644
--- a/net/netfilter/nf_tables_api.c
+++ b/net/netfilter/nf_tables_api.c
@@ -10333,9 +10333,15 @@ static void __net_exit nf_tables_exit_net(struct
net *net)
 	struct nftables_pernet *nft_net = nft_pernet(net);
  	mutex_lock(&nft_net->commit_mutex);
+	/* Need to call synchronize_rcu() to let any active rcu lockless
+	 * readers to finish. __nf_tables_abort does this internaly so
+	 * only call it here if there is nothing to abort.
+	 */
 	if (!list_empty(&nft_net->commit_list) ||
 	    !list_empty(&nft_net->module_list))
 		__nf_tables_abort(net, NFNL_ABORT_NONE);
+	else
+		synchronize_rcu();
Wouldn't it be better to just drop those list_empty() checks?
AFAICS __nf_tables_abort will DTRT in that case.

You can still add a comment like the one you added above to make
it clear that we also need to wait for those readers to finish.

Lastly, that list_del() in __nft_release_basechain should probably
be list_del_rcu()?
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help