netdev - Re: [patch net-next 2/3] netfilter: ip6_tables: use reasm skb for matching

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: <20131105181633.GA7435@macbook.localnet>
Date:	Tue, 5 Nov 2013 18:16:33 +0000
From:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
To:	Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc:	Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	davem@...emloft.net, pablo@...filter.org,
	netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org,
	kadlec@...ckhole.kfki.hu, mleitner@...hat.com,
	kuznet@....inr.ac.ru, jmorris@...ei.org, wensong@...ux-vs.org,
	horms@...ge.net.au, ja@....bg, edumazet@...gle.com,
	pshelar@...ira.com, jasowang@...hat.com,
	alexander.h.duyck@...el.com, coreteam@...filter.org
Subject: Re: [patch net-next 2/3] netfilter: ip6_tables: use reasm skb for
 matching

On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 04:01:15PM +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 02:41:19PM CET, kaber@...sh.net wrote:
> >On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 02:32:05PM +0100, Florian Westphal wrote:
> >> Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us> wrote:
> >> > This patch fixes for example following situation:
> >> > On HOSTA do:
> >> > ip6tables -I INPUT -p icmpv6 -j DROP
> >> > ip6tables -I INPUT -p icmpv6 -m icmp6 --icmpv6-type 128 -j ACCEPT
> >> 
> >> untested:
> >> 
> >> -A INPUT -p icmpv6 -m icmp6 --icmpv6-type 128 -j ACCEPT
> >> -A INPUT -p icmpv6 -m conntrack --ctstatus CONFIRMED -j ACCEPT
> >> -A INPUT -p icmpv6 -j DROP
> >> 
> >> > and on HOSTB you do:
> >> > ping6 HOSTA -s2000    (MTU is 1500)
> >> > 
> >> > Incoming echo requests will be filtered out on HOSTA. This issue does
> >> > not occur with smaller packets than MTU (where fragmentation does not happen).
> >> 
> >> Patrick, any reason not to kill the special-casing (ct has assigned helper or
> >> unconfirmed conntrack) in __ipv6_conntrack_in() ?
> >> 
> >> This should make ipv6 frag behaviour consistent; right now its rather
> >> confusing from ruleset point of view, especially the first packet
> >> of a connection is always seen as reassembled.
> >> 
> >> So with Jiris rules
> >> 
> >> -A INPUT -p icmpv6 -m icmp6 --icmpv6-type 128 -j ACCEPT
> >> -A INPUT -p icmpv6 -j DROP
> >> 
> >> ping6 -s $bignum works for the first packet but not for subsequent ones
> >> which is quite irritating.
> >
> >Well, the reason was to avoid unnecessary work doing refragmentation
> >unless really required. I know its rather complicated, but IPv6 has
> >always required treating fragments manually or using conntrack state.
> >
> >I'm not objecting to changing this, but the patches as they are are
> >not the way to go. First, moving nfct_frag to struct sk_buff seems
> 
> I'm a bit lost. What "nfct_frag" are you reffering to here?

I meant nfct_reasm of course.

> >like a real waste of space for this quite rare case. Also, we can't
> >just use the reassembled packet in ip6tables, when modifying it we
> >will still output the unchanged fragments. An last of all, we'll be
> >executing the rules on the reassembled packet multiple times, one
> >for each fragment.
> 
> Reassembled skb would be only used for matching where no changes takes
> place.

That still doesn't work, our matches are not purely passive.

> End even though, the matching is now done for each fragment skb anyway. The
> change is only to do it on different skb. I see no erformance or any
> other problem in that.

Accounting, quota, statistic, limit, ... come to mind. Basically any
match that keeps state.

> >So if someone wants to change this, simply *only* pass the reassembled
> >packet through the netfilter hooks and drop the fragments, as in IPv4.
> 
> This is unfortunatelly not possible because in forwarding use case, the
> fragments have to be send out as they come in.

No, the IPv6 NAT patches fixed that, we still do proper refragmentation
and we still respect the original fragment sizes, thus are not responsible
for potentially exceeding the PMTU on the following path.
--
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