Re: [PATCH net] net/sched: act_api: fix TOCTOU NULL deref on a->goto_chain
Jakub Kicinski <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | org.kernel.vger.netdev,org.kernel.vger.stable |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 06:43:32 -0400 Jamal Hadi Salim wrote: > On Mon, Aug 10, 2026 at 7:45 PM Jakub Kicinski <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Sun, 9 Aug 2026 05:09:28 -0400 Jamal Hadi Salim wrote: > > > tcf_action_exec() handles TC_ACT_GOTO_CHAIN by first checking > > > rcu_access_pointer(a->goto_chain) and then calling > > > tcf_action_goto_chain_exec(), which does a second, independent > > > rcu_dereference_bh(a->goto_chain) read and immediately dereferences > > > chain->filter_chain. A concurrent tcf_action_set_ctrlact() (e.g. the gact > > > replace path) can clear a->goto_chain between the two reads, so the second > > > read returns NULL and tcf_action_goto_chain_exec() dereferences NULL. > > > > FWIW *shiko suggests another tweak but looks orthogonal, LMK if you > > disagree: > > > > https://netdev-ai.bots.linux.dev/sashiko/#/patchset/[email protected] > > > > (the patch is "too fresh" for me to apply right now anyway) > > The concern is valid but pre-existing and orthogonal to this patch > (and a lot less severe than the posted fix) > I had this discussion with Paolo: When the sashikos raise a concern on > "pre-existing" issues, what should be the reaction? > In general the conclusion was to follow up later if worth it; however, > sometimes we need to make a judgement call - if the pointed to issue > is serious (and yes, the AI bots are now reading what Sashikos are > saying and constructing bug reports) then a v2 is needed. > In this case, I was planning to follow up. I will start more actively > looking at sashiko reports and analyzing if worth a followup or a v2. > I dont know how to do these pw signals, but in case i see it as "needs > v2" it won't be worth waiting for one of you guys to comment. Right, I was hoping my question was clear enough. I don't think v2 was needed here either. But we had time to confirm... > Do we need a written policy somewhere? The only written policy should be that everyone who asks for a written policy in this rapidly changing environment owes maintainers a beer :) More seriously I tried to float two written policies recently - for net vs net-next and requirements for information in fixes. And each time there was a long discussion and questions. So y'all need to either stop making written policies so painful, or stop asking for the policies. *%$#.