netdev - Re: [PATCH nf 1/1] netfilter: h323,sip: Fix possible dead loop in nat_rtp_rtcp and nf_nat_sdp

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 2 Mar 2017 20:26:56 +0800
From:   Gao Feng <fgao@...ai8.com>
To:     Liping Zhang <zlpnobody@...il.com>
Cc:     Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>,
        Jozsef Kadlecsik <kadlec@...ckhole.kfki.hu>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Netfilter Developer Mailing List 
        <netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org>, coreteam@...filter.org,
        Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH nf 1/1] netfilter: h323,sip: Fix possible dead loop in
 nat_rtp_rtcp and nf_nat_sdp_media

Hi Liping,

On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 7:18 PM, Liping Zhang <zlpnobody@...il.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> 2017-03-02 18:18 GMT+08:00 Gao Feng <fgao@...ai8.com>:
> [...]
>> The expect class is NF_CT_EXPECT_CLASS_DEFAULT, and proto is
>> IPPROTO_UDP at the function "expect_rtp_rtcp",
>> And it makes sure the port is even number.
>>
>> But look at the process_gcf, the port is got from the packet data at
>> function get_h225_addr.
>> So it may be odd number.
>> It also would add one expect node whose class is
>> NF_CT_EXPECT_CLASS_DEFAULT, and proto is IPPROTO_UDP.
>
> The nat_rtp_rtcp() is only invoked by expect_rtp_rtcp, and nf_nat_sdp_media()
> is only invoked by set_expected_rtp_rtcp. So the RTP port is ensured to be
> even, as well as the rtp_exp->tuple.dst.u.udp.port.
>
> Note: the rtp_exp is alloced by nf_ct_expect_alloc, and initialized by
> nf_ct_expect_init, then passed to nat_rtp_rtcp or nf_nat_sdp_media.
>
> So I cannot figure out why process_gcf will affect this? Or I missed something?
>

I was lost in codes and forgot to check the caller of nat_rtp_rtcp.
Thanks your explanations.

There is no any issue in current codes indeed.

Best Regards
Feng