Cong Wang <xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 5:44 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.duma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2018-01-31 at 16:26 -0800, Cong Wang wrote:
> >> rateest_hash is supposed to be protected by xt_rateest_mutex.
> >>
> >> Reported-by: <syzbot+5cb189720978275e4...@syzkaller.appspotmail.com>
> >> Fixes: 5859034d7eb8 ("[NETFILTER]: x_tables: add RATEEST target")
> >> Cc: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pa...@netfilter.org>
> >> Signed-off-by: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com>
> >> ---
> >> net/netfilter/xt_RATEEST.c | 2 ++
> >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/net/netfilter/xt_RATEEST.c b/net/netfilter/xt_RATEEST.c
> >> index 498b54fd04d7..83ec3a282755 100644
> >> --- a/net/netfilter/xt_RATEEST.c
> >> +++ b/net/netfilter/xt_RATEEST.c
> >> @@ -36,7 +36,9 @@ static void xt_rateest_hash_insert(struct xt_rateest
> >> *est)
> >> unsigned int h;
> >>
> >> h = xt_rateest_hash(est->name);
> >> + mutex_lock(&xt_rateest_mutex);
> >> hlist_add_head(&est->list, &rateest_hash[h]);
> >> + mutex_unlock(&xt_rateest_mutex);
> >> }
> >
> > We probably should make this module netns aware, otherwise bad things
> > will happen.
>
> Right, both the lock and the hashtable. I can do it for net-next,
> if you don't.
Note that the xtables af mutexes are not per-netns, the race is iptables
vs. ip6tables.
