On 29.05.19 12:37, Greg KH wrote: > On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 12:25:39PM +0200, Stefan Bader wrote: >> From: Jiri Wiesner >> >> The *_frag_reasm() functions are susceptible to miscalculating the byte >> count of packet fragments in case the truesize of a head buffer changes. >> The truesize member may be changed by the call to skb_unclone(), leaving >> the fragment memory limit counter unbalanced even if all fragments are >> processed. This miscalculation goes unnoticed as long as the network >> namespace which holds the counter is not destroyed. >> >> Should an attempt be made to destroy a network namespace that holds an >> unbalanced fragment memory limit counter the cleanup of the namespace >> never finishes. The thread handling the cleanup gets stuck in >> inet_frags_exit_net() waiting for the percpu counter to reach zero. The >> thread is usually in running state with a stacktrace similar to: >> >> PID: 1073 TASK: ffff880626711440 CPU: 1 COMMAND: "kworker/u48:4" >> #5 [ffff880621563d48] _raw_spin_lock at ffffffff815f5480 >> #6 [ffff880621563d48] inet_evict_bucket at ffffffff8158020b >> #7 [ffff880621563d80] inet_frags_exit_net at ffffffff8158051c >> #8 [ffff880621563db0] ops_exit_list at ffffffff814f5856 >> #9 [ffff880621563dd8] cleanup_net at ffffffff814f67c0 >> #10 [ffff880621563e38] process_one_work at ffffffff81096f14 >> >> It is not possible to create new network namespaces, and processes >> that call unshare() end up being stuck in uninterruptible sleep state >> waiting to acquire the net_mutex. >> >> The bug was observed in the IPv6 netfilter code by Per Sundstrom. >> I thank him for his analysis of the problem. The parts of this patch >> that apply to IPv4 and IPv6 fragment reassembly are preemptive measures. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jiri Wiesner >> Reported-by: Per Sundstrom >> Acked-by: Peter Oskolkov >> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller >> >> (backported from commit ebaf39e6032faf77218220707fc3fa22487784e0) >> [smb: context adjustments in net/ipv6/netfilter/nf_conntrack_reasm.c] >> Signed-off-by: Stefan Bader > > I can't take a patch for 4.4.y that is not in 4.9.y as anyone upgrading > kernel versions would have a regression :( > > Can you also provide a backport of the needed patches for 4.9.y for this > issue so I can take these? I will, once it is clear that a) the backport looks alright and b) is ok to be done. Alternatively it might be decided that only the parts necessary for pulling out a frag head should be picked. Or the net-devs might decide they want to send things out. The problem potentially exists in anything that has some stable support up to v5.1 and I have no complete overview where this was backported to. So this is more a start of discussion that a request to apply it. stable was just included to make stable maintainers aware. -Stefan > > thanks, > > greg k-h >