• Pablo Neira Ayuso's avatar
    netfilter: nf_ct_expect: fix possible access to uninitialized timer · 2614f864
    Pablo Neira Ayuso authored
    In __nf_ct_expect_check, the function refresh_timer returns 1
    if a matching expectation is found and its timer is successfully
    refreshed. This results in nf_ct_expect_related returning 0.
    Note that at this point:
    
    - the passed expectation is not inserted in the expectation table
      and its timer was not initialized, since we have refreshed one
      matching/existing expectation.
    
    - nf_ct_expect_alloc uses kmem_cache_alloc, so the expectation
      timer is in some undefined state just after the allocation,
      until it is appropriately initialized.
    
    This can be a problem for the SIP helper during the expectation
    addition:
    
     ...
     if (nf_ct_expect_related(rtp_exp) == 0) {
             if (nf_ct_expect_related(rtcp_exp) != 0)
                     nf_ct_unexpect_related(rtp_exp);
     ...
    
    Note that nf_ct_expect_related(rtp_exp) may return 0 for the timer refresh
    case that is detailed above. Then, if nf_ct_unexpect_related(rtcp_exp)
    returns != 0, nf_ct_unexpect_related(rtp_exp) is called, which does:
    
     spin_lock_bh(&nf_conntrack_lock);
     if (del_timer(&exp->timeout)) {
             nf_ct_unlink_expect(exp);
             nf_ct_expect_put(exp);
     }
     spin_unlock_bh(&nf_conntrack_lock);
    
    Note that del_timer always returns false if the timer has been
    initialized.  However, the timer was not initialized since setup_timer
    was not called, therefore, the expectation timer remains in some
    undefined state. If I'm not missing anything, this may lead to the
    removal an unexistent expectation.
    
    To fix this, the optimization that allows refreshing an expectation
    is removed. Now nf_conntrack_expect_related looks more consistent
    to me since it always add the expectation in case that it returns
    success.
    
    Thanks to Patrick McHardy for participating in the discussion of
    this patch.
    
    I think this may be the source of the problem described by:
    http://marc.info/?l=netfilter-devel&m=134073514719421&w=2Reported-by: default avatarRafal Fitt <rafalf@aplusc.com.pl>
    Acked-by: default avatarPatrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>
    Signed-off-by: default avatarPablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org>
    2614f864
nf_conntrack_expect.c 16.6 KB