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