net_device refcnt bug when NFQUEUEing bridged packets
Subsystems (2)
PATCH 1/1 net_device refcnt bug when NFQUEUEing bridged packets
Hi,
I came across the following bug a few weeks ago (which still applies to 2.6.24-rc7):
Packets that are to be sent out over a bridge device are skb_clone()d in br_loop() before traversing the appropriate (FORWARD/OUTPUT) NF chain. The copies made by skb_clone() share their nf_bridge metadata with the original, which is no problem usually.
If however one or more packets of a br_loop() run end up in a NFQUEUE, their shared nf_bridge metadata causes trouble when they are about to be
reinjected: nf_reinject() decrements the net_device refcounts that were previously upped when queueing the packet in __nf_queue(), but as skb->nf_bridge->physoutdev points to the same device for all these packets, most (if not all) of them will affect the wrong refcnt.
(I originally encountered the bug on a Xen host because the hypervisor refused to shutdown a virtual device with non-zero refcount... but it is perfectly reproducible with a standard kernel, too, although it was a bit more tedious to create a test scenario, involving a couple of UMLs.)
I'd suggest to make a real copy of the nf_bridge member in br_loop() if CONFIG_BRIDGE_NETFILTER is defined - I've attached a patch that illus- trates how to fix the bug (and the machine I've found the bug on is running a kernel with this patch since weeks and has not had any refcount anomalies since), but I admit it is ugly, returning the reference acquired by __nf_copy() and then copying manually...
Please tell me where that logic should really go (skbuff.h? br_netfilter.c?) so I can wrap up a final and CodingStyle-conformant version, or feel free to simply apply a modified version.
Regards,
Jan
---
net/bridge/br_forward.c +0 -0
@@ -120,6 +120,20 @@
return; }
+#ifdef CONFIG_BRIDGE_NETFILTER
+ if (skb->nf_bridge) {
+ nf_bridge_put(skb2->nf_bridge);
+ if ((skb2->nf_bridge = kzalloc(sizeof(struct nf_bridge_info), GFP_ATOMIC)) == NULL) {
+ br->statistics.tx_dropped++;
+ kfree_skb(skb2);
+ kfree_skb(skb);
+ return;
+ }
+ memcpy(skb2->nf_bridge, skb->nf_bridge, sizeof(struct nf_bridge_info));
+ atomic_set(&(skb2->nf_bridge->use), 1);
+ }
+#endif
+
__packet_hook(prev, skb2); }
Quoted 28 lines · On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 00:05:44 +0100 Jan Christoph Nordholz…
Hi,
I came across the following bug a few weeks ago (which still applies to 2.6.24-rc7):
Packets that are to be sent out over a bridge device are skb_clone()d in
br_loop()before traversing the appropriate (FORWARD/OUTPUT) NF chain. The copies made byskb_clone()share theirnf_bridgemetadata with the original, which is no problem usually.
If however one or more packets of abr_loop()run end up in a NFQUEUE, their sharednf_bridgemetadata causes trouble when they are about to be
reinjected:nf_reinject()decrements thenet_devicerefcounts that were previously upped when queueing the packet in__nf_queue(), but asskb->nf_bridge->physoutdevpoints to the same device for all these packets, most (if not all) of them will affect the wrong refcnt.(I originally encountered the bug on a Xen host because the hypervisor refused to shutdown a virtual device with non-zero refcount... but it is perfectly reproducible with a standard kernel, too, although it was a bit more tedious to create a test scenario, involving a couple of UMLs.)
I'd suggest to make a real copy of the
nf_bridgemember inbr_loop()ifCONFIG_BRIDGE_NETFILTERis defined - I've attached a patch that illus- trates how to fix the bug (and the machine I've found the bug on is running a kernel with this patch since weeks and has not had any refcount anomalies since), but I admit it is ugly, returning the reference acquired by__nf_copy()and then copying manually...
Quoted 10 lines
Please tell me where that logic should really go (
skbuff.h?br_netfilter.c?) so I can wrap up a final and CodingStyle-conformant version, or feel free to simply apply a modified version.Regards,
Jan
Please submit a bug to kernel bugzilla. Not sure that the patch is the proper way to fix this.
Signature · 1 line
Stephen Hemminger <[email protected]>