[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230912102701.GA13516@breakpoint.cc>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2023 12:27:01 +0200
From: Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
To: Linux regressions mailing list <regressions@...ts.linux.dev>
Cc: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>,
Timo Sigurdsson <public_timo.s@...entcreek.de>,
kadlec@...filter.org, fw@...len.de, davem@...emloft.net,
edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com,
netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, coreteam@...filter.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
stable@...r.kernel.org, sashal@...nel.org, carnil@...ian.org,
1051592@...s.debian.org
Subject: Re: Regression: Commit "netfilter: nf_tables: disallow rule addition
to bound chain via NFTA_RULE_CHAIN_ID" breaks ruleset loading in
linux-stable
Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) <regressions@...mhuis.info> wrote:
> On 12.09.23 00:57, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> > Userspace nftables v1.0.6 generates incorrect bytecode that hits a new
> > kernel check that rejects adding rules to bound chains. The incorrect
> > bytecode adds the chain binding, attach it to the rule and it adds the
> > rules to the chain binding. I have cherry-picked these three patches
> > for nftables v1.0.6 userspace and your ruleset restores fine.
> > [...]
>
> Hmmmm. Well, this sounds like a kernel regression to me that normally
> should be dealt with on the kernel level, as users after updating the
> kernel should never have to update any userspace stuff to continue what
> they have been doing before the kernel update.
This is a combo of a userspace bug and this new sanity check that
rejects the incorrect ordering (adding rules to the already-bound
anonymous chain).
nf_tables uses a transaction allor-nothing model, this means that any
error that occurs during a transaction has to be reverse/undo all the
pending changes. This has caused a myriad of bugs already.
So while this can be theoretically fixed in the kernel I don't see
a sane way to do it. Error unwinding / recovery from deeply nested
errors is already too complex for my taste.
> Can't the kernel somehow detect the incorrect bytecode and do the right
> thing(tm) somehow?
Theoretically yes, but I don't feel competent enough to do it, just look
at all the UaF bugs of the past month.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists