Re: [PATCH net] vxlan: mdb: Fix use-after-free in vxlan_mdb_flush()

Nikolay Aleksandrov <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.linux.network,gmane.linux.kernel
Message-ID <[email protected]>
On 14/08/2026 18:35, Baul Lee wrote:
> vxlan_mdb_flush() iterates over the MDB entries using
> hlist_for_each_entry_safe(), which only tolerates the removal of the
> current entry. Contrary to the comment above the loop, the removal of an
> entry can trigger the removal of another entry.
> 
> Flushing the remotes of a (*, G) entry also removes the (S, G) entries
> that were created for its source list, once they are left without
> remotes:
> 
> vxlan_mdb_remotes_flush()
> -> vxlan_mdb_remote_del()
>     -> vxlan_mdb_remote_srcs_del()
>        -> vxlan_mdb_remote_src_del()
>           -> vxlan_mdb_remote_src_fwd_del()
>              -> __vxlan_mdb_del()
>                 -> vxlan_mdb_entry_put()
> 
> Such an entry can be located after the (*, G) entry in the list, as
> vxlan_mdb_entry_get() returns an existing entry without moving it to the
> head of the list. This order is obtained by adding the (S, G) entry
> before the (*, G) entry, the latter with NLM_F_REPLACE, as the addition
> of the source otherwise fails with -EEXIST. The (S, G) entry is then the
> entry saved by hlist_for_each_entry_safe() and it is freed while the
> (*, G) entry is processed. The next iteration calls hlist_del() on it
> again, writing LIST_POISON1 to LIST_POISON2 [1].
> 
> Besides device deletion, the flush is also reachable from RTM_DELMDB
> with NLM_F_BULK.
> 
> Fix by re-reading the next entry after the remotes were flushed. The
> current entry cannot be removed by this flush, as source lists can only
> be configured on (*, G) entries and the removed entries are (S, G)
> entries. It is therefore still linked and its next pointer reflects the
> removals.
> 
> [1]
> BUG: KASAN: wild-memory-access in vxlan_mdb_entry_put.part.0+0x328/0x588
> Write of size 8 at addr dead000000000122 by task ip/327
> 
> CPU: 3 UID: 1000 PID: 327 Comm: ip Not tainted 7.2.0-rc7 #2 PREEMPT
> Call trace:
>   vxlan_mdb_entry_put.part.0+0x328/0x588
>   vxlan_mdb_flush+0x1d8/0x25c
>   vxlan_mdb_fini+0x8c/0x100
>   vxlan_uninit+0x1c/0x7c
>   unregister_netdevice_many_notify+0x954/0xd4c
>   rtnl_dellink+0x210/0x530
>   rtnetlink_rcv_msg+0x434/0x4d0
>   netlink_rcv_skb+0xc4/0x204
>   rtnetlink_rcv+0x18/0x24
>   netlink_unicast+0x4b8/0x548
>   netlink_sendmsg+0x29c/0x560
>   ____sys_sendmsg+0x390/0x3ec
>   ___sys_sendmsg+0x114/0x188
>   __sys_sendmsg+0xf0/0x178
>   __arm64_sys_sendmsg+0x48/0x60
>   invoke_syscall.constprop.0+0x58/0x180
>   el0_svc_common.constprop.0+0x74/0x140
>   do_el0_svc+0x30/0x40
>   el0_svc+0x38/0x98
>   el0t_64_sync_handler+0xa0/0xe4
>   el0t_64_sync+0x198/0x19c
> 
> Fixes: a3a48de5eade ("vxlan: mdb: Add MDB control path support")
> Signed-off-by: Baul Lee <[email protected]>
> ---
>   drivers/net/vxlan/vxlan_mdb.c | 9 ++++++---
>   1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/vxlan/vxlan_mdb.c b/drivers/net/vxlan/vxlan_mdb.c
> index 055a4969f593..385889c001d1 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/vxlan/vxlan_mdb.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/vxlan/vxlan_mdb.c
> @@ -1422,14 +1422,17 @@ static void vxlan_mdb_flush(struct vxlan_dev *vxlan,
>   	struct vxlan_mdb_entry *mdb_entry;
>   	struct hlist_node *tmp;
>   
> -	/* The removal of an entry cannot trigger the removal of another entry
> -	 * since entries are always added to the head of the list.
> -	 */
>   	hlist_for_each_entry_safe(mdb_entry, tmp, &vxlan->mdb_list, mdb_node) {
>   		if (desc->src_vni && desc->src_vni != mdb_entry->key.vni)
>   			continue;
>   
>   		vxlan_mdb_remotes_flush(vxlan, mdb_entry, desc);
> +		/* The flush can remove the (S, G) entries created for the
> +		 * source list of this entry, including the one saved by
> +		 * hlist_for_each_entry_safe(), so re-read it while this entry
> +		 * is still linked.
> +		 */
> +		tmp = mdb_entry->mdb_node.next;
>   		/* Entry will only be removed if its remotes list is empty. */
>   		vxlan_mdb_entry_put(vxlan, mdb_entry);
>   	}

The patch looks good to me, but I also think a selftest can be added.

Reviewed-by: Nikolay Aleksandrov <[email protected]>
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.