Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S968810AbdIZMps (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Sep 2017 08:45:48 -0400 Received: from Chamillionaire.breakpoint.cc ([146.0.238.67]:59034 "EHLO Chamillionaire.breakpoint.cc" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S966162AbdIZMpq (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Sep 2017 08:45:46 -0400 Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 14:42:11 +0200 From: Florian Westphal To: Artem Savkov Cc: Florian Westphal , Pablo Neira Ayuso , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] ebtables: fix race condition in frame_filter_net_init() Message-ID: <20170926124211.GA14971@breakpoint.cc> References: <20170926122938.11603-1-asavkov@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170926122938.11603-1-asavkov@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1451 Lines: 41 Artem Savkov wrote: > It is possible for ebt_in_hook to be triggered before ebt_table is assigned > resulting in a NULL-pointer dereference. Make sure hooks are > registered as the last step. Right, thanks for the patch. > --- a/net/bridge/netfilter/ebtable_broute.c > +++ b/net/bridge/netfilter/ebtable_broute.c > @@ -65,7 +65,7 @@ static int ebt_broute(struct sk_buff *skb) > > static int __net_init broute_net_init(struct net *net) > { > - net->xt.broute_table = ebt_register_table(net, &broute_table, NULL); > + net->xt.broute_table = ebt_register_table(net, &broute_table); I wonder if it makes more sense to model this like the iptables version, i.e. pass net->xt.table_name as last arg to ebt_register_table ... > +int ebt_register_hooks(struct net *net, struct ebt_table *table, > + const struct nf_hook_ops *ops) > +{ > + int ret = nf_register_net_hooks(net, ops, hweight32(table->valid_hooks)); > + > + if (ret) > + __ebt_unregister_table(net, table); > + > + return ret; > +} ... because this looks strange (unregister of table/not-so-obvious error unwinding ...) > @@ -1252,15 +1262,6 @@ ebt_register_table(struct net *net, const struct ebt_table *input_table, > list_add(&table->list, &net->xt.tables[NFPROTO_BRIDGE]); > mutex_unlock(&ebt_mutex); ... here one could then assign the net->xt.table_X pointer, and then do the hook registration right after. However i have no strong opinion here.