From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF897C7618B for ; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 13:52:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE53121738 for ; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 13:52:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727496AbfGWNwv (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Jul 2019 09:52:51 -0400 Received: from mail.us.es ([193.147.175.20]:41484 "EHLO mail.us.es" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725907AbfGWNwv (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Jul 2019 09:52:51 -0400 Received: from antivirus1-rhel7.int (unknown [192.168.2.11]) by mail.us.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C43A69653 for ; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 15:52:49 +0200 (CEST) Received: from antivirus1-rhel7.int (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by antivirus1-rhel7.int (Postfix) with ESMTP id E58A1474 for ; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 15:52:48 +0200 (CEST) Received: by antivirus1-rhel7.int (Postfix, from userid 99) id DB1EADA708; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 15:52:48 +0200 (CEST) Received: from antivirus1-rhel7.int (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by antivirus1-rhel7.int (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D61EDA708; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 15:52:46 +0200 (CEST) Received: from 192.168.1.97 (192.168.1.97) by antivirus1-rhel7.int (F-Secure/fsigk_smtp/550/antivirus1-rhel7.int); Tue, 23 Jul 2019 15:52:46 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Status: clean(F-Secure/fsigk_smtp/550/antivirus1-rhel7.int) Received: from us.es (unknown [31.4.183.64]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: 1984lsi) by entrada.int (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4774440705C4; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 15:52:46 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 15:52:44 +0200 X-SMTPAUTHUS: auth mail.us.es From: Pablo Neira Ayuso To: Phil Sutter , Florian Westphal , netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH nft 3/3] src: evaluate: return immediately if no op was requested Message-ID: <20190723135244.x77dihvyf4nplbku@salvia> References: <20190721001406.23785-1-fw@strlen.de> <20190721001406.23785-4-fw@strlen.de> <20190721184901.n5ea7kpn246bddnb@salvia> <20190721185040.5ueush32pe7zta2k@breakpoint.cc> <20190722212556.gnxhgqlnrqt2epgg@salvia> <20190723131142.GN22661@orbyte.nwl.cc> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190723131142.GN22661@orbyte.nwl.cc> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2) X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 03:11:42PM +0200, Phil Sutter wrote: > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 11:25:56PM +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 08:50:40PM +0200, Florian Westphal wrote: > > > Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > > > > On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 02:14:07AM +0200, Florian Westphal wrote: > > > > > This makes nft behave like 0.9.0 -- the ruleset > > > > > > > > > > flush ruleset > > > > > table inet filter { > > > > > } > > > > > table inet filter { > > > > > chain test { > > > > > counter > > > > > } > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > loads again without generating an error message. > > > > > I've added a test case for this, without this it will create an error, > > > > > and with a checkout of the 'fixes' tag we get crash. > > > > > > > > > > Closes: https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1351 > > > > > Fixes: e5382c0d08e3c ("src: Support intra-transaction rule references") > > > > > > > > This one is causing the cache corruption, right? > > > > > > There is no cache corruption. This patch makes us enter a code > > > path that we did not take before. > > > > Sorry, I mean, this is a cache bug :-) > > > > cache_flush() is cheating, it sets flags to CACHE_FULL, hence this > > enters this codepath we dit not take before. This propagates from the > > previous logic, as a workaround. > > > > I made this patch, to skip the cache in case "flush ruleset" is > > requested. > > > > This breaks testcases/transactions/0024rule_0, which is a recent test > > from Phil to check for intra-transaction references, I don't know yet > > what makes this code unhappy with my changes. > > > > Phil, would you help me have a look at what assumption breaks? Thanks. > > Sorry, I don't get it. What is happening in the first place? Florian > writes, a lookup happens in the wrong table and it seems > chain_evaluate() doesn't add the chain to cache. Yet I don't understand > why given patch fixes the problem. Just sent a patch for this.