Thread (5 messages) 5 messages, 3 authors, 1d ago

Re: [PATCH net 1/2] nexthop: take nh->lock for f6i_list walks in replace check and notify

From: Ido Schimmel <idosch@nvidia.com>
Date: 2026-07-23 19:20:16
Also in: lkml

On Wed, Jul 22, 2026 at 12:29:50AM +0000, Xiang Mei (Microsoft) wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
fib6_check_nh_list() and __nexthop_replace_notify() walk nh->f6i_list
during an RTNL-serialized nexthop replace without holding nh->lock. IPv6
RTM_NEWROUTE/RTM_DELROUTE run without RTNL and mutate that list under
nh->lock (fib6_add_rt2node_nh(), fib6_purge_rt()), so both walks race a
concurrent route delete that unlinks and frees a fib6_info:

  BUG: KASAN: slab-use-after-free in rt6_fill_node.isra.0 (net/ipv6/route.c:5799)
  Read of size 4 at addr ffff888014607e64 by task exploit/143
   rt6_fill_node.isra.0 (net/ipv6/route.c:5799)
   fib6_rt_update (net/ipv6/route.c:6412)
   __nexthop_replace_notify (net/ipv4/nexthop.c:2542)
   rtm_new_nexthop (net/ipv4/nexthop.c:2554)
   rtnetlink_rcv_msg (net/core/rtnetlink.c:7076)

  BUG: KASAN: slab-use-after-free in fib6_check_nh_list (net/ipv4/nexthop.c:1605)
  Read of size 8 at addr ffff888014a7d068 by task exploit/142
   fib6_check_nh_list (net/ipv4/nexthop.c:1605)
   rtm_new_nexthop (net/ipv4/nexthop.c:2575)
   rtnetlink_rcv_msg (net/core/rtnetlink.c:7076)

Both walks only read the entries and take no tb6_lock, so protect them
with nh->lock; fib6_rt_update() uses gfp_any(), which returns GFP_ATOMIC
under the lock.

Fixes: 081efd18326e ("ipv6: Protect nh->f6i_list with spinlock and flag.")
Reported-by: AutonomousCodeSecurity@microsoft.com
Signed-off-by: Xiang Mei (Microsoft) <redacted>
---
 net/ipv4/nexthop.c | 13 +++++++++++--
 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/ipv4/nexthop.c b/net/ipv4/nexthop.c
index 6205bd57aa85..c1d3b7d7100d 100644
--- a/net/ipv4/nexthop.c
+++ b/net/ipv4/nexthop.c
@@ -1597,14 +1597,21 @@ static int fib6_check_nh_list(struct nexthop *old, struct nexthop *new,
 			      struct netlink_ext_ack *extack)
 {
 	struct fib6_info *f6i;
+	int err = 0;
 
 	if (list_empty(&old->f6i_list))
 		return 0;
 
+	spin_lock_bh(&old->lock);
 	list_for_each_entry(f6i, &old->f6i_list, nh_list) {
-		if (check_src_addr(&f6i->fib6_src.addr, extack) < 0)
-			return -EINVAL;
+		err = check_src_addr(&f6i->fib6_src.addr, extack);
+		if (err)
+			break;
 	}
+	spin_unlock_bh(&old->lock);
+
+	if (err)
+		return err;
 
 	return fib6_check_nexthop(new, NULL, extack);
 }
@@ -2538,8 +2545,10 @@ static void __nexthop_replace_notify(struct net *net, struct nexthop *nh,
 			fi->nh_updated = false;
 	}
 
+	spin_lock_bh(&nh->lock);
 	list_for_each_entry(f6i, &nh->f6i_list, nh_list)
 		fib6_rt_update(net, f6i, info);
+	spin_unlock_bh(&nh->lock);
I read the feedback from Sashiko, but even if we convert this list to
RCU we would need GFP_ATOMIC. I don't find __nexthop_replace_notify()
too interesting given that modern systems unset
net.ipv4.nexthop_compat_mode, which means that this function is never
called.

Reviewed-by: Ido Schimmel <idosch@nvidia.com>
 }
 
 /* send RTM_NEWROUTE with REPLACE flag set for all FIB entries
-- 
2.43.0
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help