linux-kernel - [PATCH 4.4 33/83] ipvs: SNAT packet replies only for NATed connections

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

Message-Id: <20170725191713.320873014@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:   Tue, 25 Jul 2017 12:18:57 -0700
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, Nick Moriarty <nick.moriarty@...k.ac.uk>,
        Julian Anastasov <ja@....bg>, Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>
Subject: [PATCH 4.4 33/83] ipvs: SNAT packet replies only for NATed connections

4.4-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: Julian Anastasov <ja@....bg>

commit 3c5ab3f395d66a9e4e937fcfdf6ebc63894f028b upstream.

We do not check if packet from real server is for NAT
connection before performing SNAT. This causes problems
for setups that use DR/TUN and allow local clients to
access the real server directly, for example:

- local client in director creates IPVS-DR/TUN connection
CIP->VIP and the request packets are routed to RIP.
Talks are finished but IPVS connection is not expired yet.

- second local client creates non-IPVS connection CIP->RIP
with same reply tuple RIP->CIP and when replies are received
on LOCAL_IN we wrongly assign them for the first client
connection because RIP->CIP matches the reply direction.
As result, IPVS SNATs replies for non-IPVS connections.

The problem is more visible to local UDP clients but in rare
cases it can happen also for TCP or remote clients when the
real server sends the reply traffic via the director.

So, better to be more precise for the reply traffic.
As replies are not expected for DR/TUN connections, better
to not touch them.

Reported-by: Nick Moriarty <nick.moriarty@...k.ac.uk>
Tested-by: Nick Moriarty <nick.moriarty@...k.ac.uk>
Signed-off-by: Julian Anastasov <ja@....bg>
Signed-off-by: Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>

---
 net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_core.c |   19 ++++++++++++++-----
 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

--- a/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_core.c
+++ b/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_core.c
@@ -845,10 +845,8 @@ static int handle_response_icmp(int af,
 {
 	unsigned int verdict = NF_DROP;
 
-	if (IP_VS_FWD_METHOD(cp) != 0) {
-		pr_err("shouldn't reach here, because the box is on the "
-		       "half connection in the tun/dr module.\n");
-	}
+	if (IP_VS_FWD_METHOD(cp) != IP_VS_CONN_F_MASQ)
+		goto ignore_cp;
 
 	/* Ensure the checksum is correct */
 	if (!skb_csum_unnecessary(skb) && ip_vs_checksum_complete(skb, ihl)) {
@@ -882,6 +880,8 @@ static int handle_response_icmp(int af,
 		ip_vs_notrack(skb);
 	else
 		ip_vs_update_conntrack(skb, cp, 0);
+
+ignore_cp:
 	verdict = NF_ACCEPT;
 
 out:
@@ -1242,8 +1242,11 @@ ip_vs_out(struct netns_ipvs *ipvs, unsig
 	 */
 	cp = pp->conn_out_get(ipvs, af, skb, &iph);
 
-	if (likely(cp))
+	if (likely(cp)) {
+		if (IP_VS_FWD_METHOD(cp) != IP_VS_CONN_F_MASQ)
+			goto ignore_cp;
 		return handle_response(af, skb, pd, cp, &iph, hooknum);
+	}
 	if (sysctl_nat_icmp_send(ipvs) &&
 	    (pp->protocol == IPPROTO_TCP ||
 	     pp->protocol == IPPROTO_UDP ||
@@ -1285,9 +1288,15 @@ ip_vs_out(struct netns_ipvs *ipvs, unsig
 			}
 		}
 	}
+
+out:
 	IP_VS_DBG_PKT(12, af, pp, skb, iph.off,
 		      "ip_vs_out: packet continues traversal as normal");
 	return NF_ACCEPT;
+
+ignore_cp:
+	__ip_vs_conn_put(cp);
+	goto out;
 }
 
 /*