Pablo Neira Ayuso <pa...@netfilter.org> writes:
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 06:15:06PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> @@ -102,13 +112,35 @@ int nf_register_hook(struct nf_hook_ops *reg)
>> #endif
>> return 0;
>> }
>> -EXPORT_SYMBOL(nf_register_hook);
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(nf_register_net_hook);
>>
>> -void nf_unregister_hook(struct nf_hook_ops *reg)
>> +void nf_unregister_net_hook(struct net *net, const struct nf_hook_ops *reg)
>> {
>> + struct list_head *nf_hook_list;
>> + struct nf_hook_ops *elem;
>> +
>> + nf_hook_list = find_nf_hook_list(net, reg);
>> + if (!nf_hook_list)
>> + return;
>> +
>> mutex_lock(&nf_hook_mutex);
>> - list_del_rcu(®->list);
>> + list_for_each_entry(elem, nf_hook_list, list) {
>> + if ((reg->hook == elem->hook) &&
>> + (reg->dev == elem->dev) &&
>> + (reg->owner == elem->owner) &&
>> + (reg->priv == elem->priv) &&
>> + (reg->pf == elem->pf) &&
>> + (reg->hooknum == elem->hooknum) &&
>> + (reg->priority == elem->priority)) {
>> + list_del_rcu(&elem->list);
>> + break;
>> + }
>> + }
>
> I think I found a problem with this code above.
>
> If we register two hooks from the same module using exactly the same
> tuple that identifies this, we delete the hook that we don't want, eg.
>
> nft add table filter
> nft add chain filter test { type filter hook input priority 0\; }
> nft add chain filter test2 { type filter hook input priority 0\; }
>
> then, you delete 'test':
>
> nft delete chain filter test
>
> This will delete 'test2' hook instead of 'test' as it will find this
> in first place on the list.
So we have two adjacent entries on the same chain that perform the exact
same action. We delete one of them.
I do not see how that is noticable. Registration order plays a small
role but especially with the priority bit we don't strongly honor
registration order.
In your example above we will distinguish between the two chains
as nf_hook_ops->priv will point the nf tables chain. So that specific
case is at least safe.
> I think we should add a cookie field that stores the address of the
> original hook object that is passed as parameter, so we are sure we
> kill the right hook.
I don't believe that is necessary. To the best of my knowledge for a
registration to be meaningful we must always change at least one of
those fields I am comparing. Typically either priv or hook.
It is a real change from what we have been doing but there is a lot
of freedom in not needing to keep the original structure around.
Eric
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
