Hello,
I'll commit one-liner diff on Tuesday morning (Jun 6th) Prague time without
explicit OK, unless there will be no objection.
regards
sashan
On Sun, Jun 05, 2022 at 09:44:45AM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> I don't know this code well enough to give a meaningful OK, but this
> should probably get committed.
>
>
> On 2022/06/01 09:16, Alexandr Nedvedicky wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > </snip>
> > > r420-1# rcctl -f start relayd
> > > relayd(ok)
> > > r420-1# uvm_fault(0xfffffd862f82f990, 0x0, 0, 1) -> e
> > > kernel: page fault trap, code=0
> > > Stopped at pf_find_or_create_ruleset+0x1c: movb 0(%rdi),%al
> > > TID PID UID PRFLAGS PFLAGS CPU COMMAND
> > > 431388 19003 0 0x2 0 5 relayd
> > > 174608 32253 89 0x1000012 0 2 relayd
> > > 395415 12468 0 0x2 0 4 relayd
> > > 493579 11904 0 0x2 0 3 relayd
> > > *101082 14967 89 0x1100012 0 0K relayd
> > > pf_find_or_create_ruleset(0) at pf_find_or_create_ruleset+0x1c
> > > pfr_add_tables(832d7cca800,1,ffff800000eaf43c,10000000) at
> > > pfr_add_tables+0x6ae
> > >
> > > pfioctl(4900,c450443d,ffff800000eaf000,3,ffff80002272e7f0) at
> > > pfioctl+0x1d9f
> > > VOP_IOCTL(fffffd8551f82dd0,c450443d,ffff800000eaf000,3,fffffd862f7d60c0,ffff800
> > > 02272e7f0) at VOP_IOCTL+0x5c
> > > vn_ioctl(fffffd855ecec1e8,c450443d,ffff800000eaf000,ffff80002272e7f0) at
> > > vn_ioctl+0x75
> > > sys_ioctl(ffff80002272e7f0,ffff8000227d9980,ffff8000227d99d0) at
> > > sys_ioctl+0x2c4
> > > syscall(ffff8000227d9a40) at syscall+0x374
> > > Xsyscall() at Xsyscall+0x128
> > > end of kernel
> >
> > it looks like we are dying here at line 239 due to NULL pointer
> > deference:
> >
> > 232 struct pf_ruleset *
> > 233 pf_find_or_create_ruleset(const char *path)
> > 234 {
> > 235 char *p, *aname, *r;
> > 236 struct pf_ruleset *ruleset;
> > 237 struct pf_anchor *anchor;
> > 238
> > 239 if (path[0] == 0)
> > 240 return (&pf_main_ruleset);
> > 241
> > 242 while (*path == '/')
> > 243 path++;
> > 244
> >
> > I've followed the same steps to reproduce the issue to check if
> > diff below resolves the issue. The bug has been introduced by
> > my recent change to pf_table.c [1] from May 10th:
> >
> > Modified files:
> > sys/net : pf_ioctl.c pf_table.c
> >
> > Log message:
> > move memory allocations in pfr_add_tables() out of
> > NET_LOCK()/PF_LOCK() scope. bluhm@ helped a lot
> > to put this diff into shape.
> >
> > besides using a regression test I've also did simple testing
> > using a 'load anchor':
> >
> > netlock# cat /tmp/anchor.conf
> >
> > load anchor "test" from "/tmp/pf.conf"
> > netlock#
> > netlock# cat /tmp/pf.conf
> >
> > table <try> { 192.168.1.1 }
> > pass from <try>
> > netlock#
> > netlock# pfctl -sA
> > test
> > netlock# pfctl -a test -sT
> > try
> > netlock# pfctl -a test -t try -T show
> > 192.168.1.1
> >
> > OK to commit fix below?
> >
> > thanks and
> > regards
> > sashan
> >
> > [1]
> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-cvs&m=165222430111103&w=2__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!LsTJPPsMku6N_u9xzJu6Tj6XpZWyLzLWPmbWr-Z-p845Y8r6LH4Ul8PyX8EmqI6alhF0JqadpBBF4mn53v-rQdY$
> >
> >
> > --------8<---------------8<---------------8<------------------8<--------
> > diff --git a/sys/net/pf_table.c b/sys/net/pf_table.c
> > index 8315ea5dd3a..dfc49de5efe 100644
> > --- a/sys/net/pf_table.c
> > +++ b/sys/net/pf_table.c
> > @@ -1628,8 +1628,7 @@ pfr_add_tables(struct pfr_table *tbl, int size, int
> > *nadd, int flags)
> > if (r != NULL)
> > continue;
> >
> > - q->pfrkt_rs = pf_find_or_create_ruleset(
> > - q->pfrkt_root->pfrkt_anchor);
> > + q->pfrkt_rs =
> > pf_find_or_create_ruleset(q->pfrkt_anchor);
> > /*
> > * root tables are attached to main ruleset,
> > * because ->pfrkt_anchor[0] == '\0'
> >
