| 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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2020 15:30:02 +0200
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
stable@...r.kernel.org, Andreas Fischer <netfilter@....eu>,
Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@...hat.com>,
Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>
Subject: [PATCH 5.8 03/17] netfilter: nft_set_rbtree: Handle outcomes of tree rotations in overlap detection
From: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@...hat.com>
commit 226a88de473e475cb9f993682a1c7d0c2b451ad8 upstream.
Checks for partial overlaps on insertion assume that end elements
are always descendant nodes of their corresponding start, because
they are inserted later. However, this is not the case if a
previous delete operation caused a tree rotation as part of
rebalancing.
Taking the issue reported by Andreas Fischer as an example, if we
omit delete operations, the existing procedure works because,
equivalently, we are inserting a start item with value 40 in the
this region of the red-black tree with single-sized intervals:
overlap flag
10 (start)
/ \ false
20 (start)
/ \ false
30 (start)
/ \ false
60 (start)
/ \ false
50 (end)
/ \ false
20 (end)
/ \ false
40 (start)
if we now delete interval 30 - 30, the tree can be rearranged in
a way similar to this (note the rotation involving 50 - 50):
overlap flag
10 (start)
/ \ false
20 (start)
/ \ false
25 (start)
/ \ false
70 (start)
/ \ false
50 (end)
/ \ true (from rule a1.)
50 (start)
/ \ true
40 (start)
and we traverse interval 50 - 50 from the opposite direction
compared to what was expected.
To deal with those cases, add a start-before-start rule, b4.,
that covers traversal of existing intervals from the right.
We now need to restrict start-after-end rule b3. to cases
where there are no occurring nodes between existing start and
end elements, because addition of rule b4. isn't sufficient to
ensure that the pre-existing end element we encounter while
descending the tree corresponds to a start element of an
interval that we already traversed entirely.
Different types of overlap detection on trees with rotations
resulting from re-balancing will be covered by nft test case
sets/0044interval_overlap_1.
Reported-by: Andreas Fischer <netfilter@....eu>
Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1449
Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org> # 5.6.x
Fixes: 7c84d41416d8 ("netfilter: nft_set_rbtree: Detect partial overlaps on insertion")
Signed-off-by: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@...hat.com>
Signed-off-by: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
---
net/netfilter/nft_set_rbtree.c | 23 ++++++++++++++---------
1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
--- a/net/netfilter/nft_set_rbtree.c
+++ b/net/netfilter/nft_set_rbtree.c
@@ -238,21 +238,27 @@ static int __nft_rbtree_insert(const str
*
* b1. _ _ __>| !_ _ __| (insert end before existing start)
* b2. _ _ ___| !_ _ _>| (insert end after existing start)
- * b3. _ _ ___! >|_ _ __| (insert start after existing end)
+ * b3. _ _ ___! >|_ _ __| (insert start after existing end, as a leaf)
+ * '--' no nodes falling in this range
+ * b4. >|_ _ ! (insert start before existing start)
*
* Case a3. resolves to b3.:
* - if the inserted start element is the leftmost, because the '0'
* element in the tree serves as end element
- * - otherwise, if an existing end is found. Note that end elements are
- * always inserted after corresponding start elements.
+ * - otherwise, if an existing end is found immediately to the left. If
+ * there are existing nodes in between, we need to further descend the
+ * tree before we can conclude the new start isn't causing an overlap
+ *
+ * or to b4., which, preceded by a3., means we already traversed one or
+ * more existing intervals entirely, from the right.
*
* For a new, rightmost pair of elements, we'll hit cases b3. and b2.,
* in that order.
*
* The flag is also cleared in two special cases:
*
- * b4. |__ _ _!|<_ _ _ (insert start right before existing end)
- * b5. |__ _ >|!__ _ _ (insert end right after existing start)
+ * b5. |__ _ _!|<_ _ _ (insert start right before existing end)
+ * b6. |__ _ >|!__ _ _ (insert end right after existing start)
*
* which always happen as last step and imply that no further
* overlapping is possible.
@@ -272,7 +278,7 @@ static int __nft_rbtree_insert(const str
if (nft_rbtree_interval_start(new)) {
if (nft_rbtree_interval_end(rbe) &&
nft_set_elem_active(&rbe->ext, genmask) &&
- !nft_set_elem_expired(&rbe->ext))
+ !nft_set_elem_expired(&rbe->ext) && !*p)
overlap = false;
} else {
overlap = nft_rbtree_interval_end(rbe) &&
@@ -288,10 +294,9 @@ static int __nft_rbtree_insert(const str
nft_set_elem_active(&rbe->ext,
genmask) &&
!nft_set_elem_expired(&rbe->ext);
- } else if (nft_rbtree_interval_end(rbe) &&
- nft_set_elem_active(&rbe->ext, genmask) &&
+ } else if (nft_set_elem_active(&rbe->ext, genmask) &&
!nft_set_elem_expired(&rbe->ext)) {
- overlap = true;
+ overlap = nft_rbtree_interval_end(rbe);
}
} else {
if (nft_rbtree_interval_end(rbe) &&
Powered by blists - more mailing lists