| 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: Mon, 14 May 2012 17:05:57 +0200
From: Hans Schillstrom <hans.schillstrom@...csson.com>
To: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>
CC: "kaber@...sh.net" <kaber@...sh.net>,
"jengelh@...ozas.de" <jengelh@...ozas.de>,
"netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org" <netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"dan.carpenter@...cle.com" <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
"hans@...illstrom.com" <hans@...illstrom.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] netfilter: xt_HMARK: endian bugs
On Monday 14 May 2012 16:40:52 Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 03:42:23PM +0200, Hans Schillstrom wrote:
> > A mix of u32 and __be32 causes endian warning.
> > Switch to __be32 and __be16 for addresses and ports.
> > Added (__force u32) at some places.
> >
> > Reported-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Hans Schillstrom <hans.schillstrom@...csson.com>
> > ---
> > include/linux/netfilter/xt_HMARK.h | 4 ++--
> > net/netfilter/xt_HMARK.c | 35 ++++++++++++++++++-----------------
> > 2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/netfilter/xt_HMARK.h b/include/linux/netfilter/xt_HMARK.h
> > index abb1650..e2af67e 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/netfilter/xt_HMARK.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/netfilter/xt_HMARK.h
> > @@ -24,8 +24,8 @@ enum {
> >
> > union hmark_ports {
> > struct {
> > - __u16 src;
> > - __u16 dst;
> > + __be16 src;
> > + __be16 dst;
> > } p16;
> > __u32 v32;
> > };
> > diff --git a/net/netfilter/xt_HMARK.c b/net/netfilter/xt_HMARK.c
> > index 32fbd73..38ed442 100644
> > --- a/net/netfilter/xt_HMARK.c
> > +++ b/net/netfilter/xt_HMARK.c
> > @@ -32,13 +32,13 @@ MODULE_ALIAS("ipt_HMARK");
> > MODULE_ALIAS("ip6t_HMARK");
> >
> > struct hmark_tuple {
> > - u32 src;
> > - u32 dst;
> > + __be32 src;
> > + __be32 dst;
> > union hmark_ports uports;
> > uint8_t proto;
> > };
> >
> > -static inline u32 hmark_addr6_mask(const __u32 *addr32, const __u32 *mask)
> > +static inline __be32 hmark_addr6_mask(const __be32 *addr32, const __be32 *mask)
> > {
> > return (addr32[0] & mask[0]) ^
> > (addr32[1] & mask[1]) ^
> > @@ -46,8 +46,8 @@ static inline u32 hmark_addr6_mask(const __u32 *addr32, const __u32 *mask)
> > (addr32[3] & mask[3]);
> > }
> >
> > -static inline u32
> > -hmark_addr_mask(int l3num, const __u32 *addr32, const __u32 *mask)
> > +static inline __be32
> > +hmark_addr_mask(int l3num, const __be32 *addr32, const __be32 *mask)
> > {
> > switch (l3num) {
> > case AF_INET:
> > @@ -74,10 +74,10 @@ hmark_ct_set_htuple(const struct sk_buff *skb, struct hmark_tuple *t,
> > otuple = &ct->tuplehash[IP_CT_DIR_ORIGINAL].tuple;
> > rtuple = &ct->tuplehash[IP_CT_DIR_REPLY].tuple;
> >
> > - t->src = hmark_addr_mask(otuple->src.l3num, otuple->src.u3.all,
> > - info->src_mask.all);
> > - t->dst = hmark_addr_mask(otuple->src.l3num, rtuple->src.u3.all,
> > - info->dst_mask.all);
> > + t->src = hmark_addr_mask(otuple->src.l3num, otuple->src.u3.ip6,
> > + info->src_mask.ip6);
> > + t->dst = hmark_addr_mask(otuple->src.l3num, rtuple->src.u3.ip6,
> > + info->dst_mask.ip6);
> >
> > if (info->flags & XT_HMARK_FLAG(XT_HMARK_METHOD_L3))
> > return 0;
> > @@ -88,7 +88,7 @@ hmark_ct_set_htuple(const struct sk_buff *skb, struct hmark_tuple *t,
> > t->uports.p16.dst = rtuple->src.u.all;
> > t->uports.v32 = (t->uports.v32 & info->port_mask.v32) |
> > info->port_set.v32;
> > - if (t->uports.p16.dst < t->uports.p16.src)
> > + if (ntohs(t->uports.p16.dst) < ntohs(t->uports.p16.src))
>
> Do we really need this to make sparse happy?
__force is ok for Sparse,
but I realize that the mixing little and big endian machines will not work
>
> > swap(t->uports.p16.dst, t->uports.p16.src);
> > }
> >
> > @@ -103,10 +103,11 @@ hmark_hash(struct hmark_tuple *t, const struct xt_hmark_info *info)
> > {
> > u32 hash;
> >
> > - if (t->dst < t->src)
> > + if (ntohl(t->dst) < ntohl(t->src))
> > swap(t->src, t->dst);
> >
> > - hash = jhash_3words(t->src, t->dst, t->uports.v32, info->hashrnd);
> > + hash = jhash_3words((__force u32) t->src, (__force u32) t->dst,
> > + t->uports.v32, info->hashrnd);
> > hash = hash ^ (t->proto & info->proto_mask);
> >
> > return (hash % info->hmodulus) + info->hoffset;
>
> This will clash with my patch. No problem, I'll manually fix it
> myself.
Thanks
>
> > @@ -129,7 +130,7 @@ hmark_set_tuple_ports(const struct sk_buff *skb, unsigned int nhoff,
> > t->uports.v32 = (t->uports.v32 & info->port_mask.v32) |
> > info->port_set.v32;
> >
> > - if (t->uports.p16.dst < t->uports.p16.src)
> > + if (ntohs(t->uports.p16.dst) < ntohs(t->uports.p16.src))
> > swap(t->uports.p16.dst, t->uports.p16.src);
> > }
> >
> > @@ -178,8 +179,8 @@ hmark_pkt_set_htuple_ipv6(const struct sk_buff *skb, struct hmark_tuple *t,
> > return -1;
> > }
> > noicmp:
> > - t->src = hmark_addr6_mask(ip6->saddr.s6_addr32, info->src_mask.all);
> > - t->dst = hmark_addr6_mask(ip6->daddr.s6_addr32, info->dst_mask.all);
> > + t->src = hmark_addr6_mask(ip6->saddr.s6_addr32, info->src_mask.ip6);
> > + t->dst = hmark_addr6_mask(ip6->daddr.s6_addr32, info->dst_mask.ip6);
> >
> > if (info->flags & XT_HMARK_FLAG(XT_HMARK_METHOD_L3))
> > return 0;
> > @@ -255,8 +256,8 @@ hmark_pkt_set_htuple_ipv4(const struct sk_buff *skb, struct hmark_tuple *t,
> > }
> > }
> >
> > - t->src = (__force u32) ip->saddr;
> > - t->dst = (__force u32) ip->daddr;
> > + t->src = ip->saddr;
> > + t->dst = ip->daddr;
> >
> > t->src &= info->src_mask.ip;
> > t->dst &= info->dst_mask.ip;
> > --
> > 1.7.2.3
> >
--
Regards
Hans Schillstrom <hans.schillstrom@...csson.com>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists