netdev - Re: [PATCH net v4] net: netfilter: Fix port selection of FTP for NF_NAT_RANGE_PROTO

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: <20210916112641.GC20414@breakpoint.cc>
Date:   Thu, 16 Sep 2021 13:26:41 +0200
From:   Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
To:     Cole Dishington <Cole.Dishington@...iedtelesis.co.nz>
Cc:     pablo@...filter.org, kadlec@...filter.org, fw@...len.de,
        davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org, shuah@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org,
        coreteam@...filter.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Anthony Lineham <anthony.lineham@...iedtelesis.co.nz>,
        Scott Parlane <scott.parlane@...iedtelesis.co.nz>,
        Blair Steven <blair.steven@...iedtelesis.co.nz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v4] net: netfilter: Fix port selection of FTP for
 NF_NAT_RANGE_PROTO_SPECIFIED

Cole Dishington <Cole.Dishington@...iedtelesis.co.nz> wrote:
> +	/* Avoid applying nat->range to the reply direction */
> +	if (!exp->dir || !nat->range_info.min_proto.all || !nat->range_info.max_proto.all) {
> +		min = ntohs(exp->saved_proto.tcp.port);
> +		range_size = 65535 - min + 1;
> +	} else {
> +		min = ntohs(nat->range_info.min_proto.all);
> +		range_size = ntohs(nat->range_info.max_proto.all) - min + 1;
> +	}
> +
>  	/* Try to get same port: if not, try to change it. */
> -	for (port = ntohs(exp->saved_proto.tcp.port); port != 0; port++) {
> -		int ret;
> +	first_port = ntohs(exp->saved_proto.tcp.port);
> +	if (min > first_port || first_port > (min + range_size - 1))
> +		first_port = min;
>  
> +	for (i = 0, port = first_port; i < range_size; i++, port = (port - first_port + i) % range_size) {

This looks complicated.  As far as I understand, this could instead be
written like this (not even compile tested):

	/* Avoid applying nat->range to the reply direction */
	if (!exp->dir || !nat->range_info.min_proto.all || !nat->range_info.max_proto.all) {
		min = 1;
		max = 65535;
		range_size = 65535;
	} else {
		min = ntohs(nat->range_info.min_proto.all);
		max = ntohs(nat->range_info.max_proto.all);
		range_size = max - min + 1;
	}

  	/* Try to get same port: if not, try to change it. */
	port = ntohs(exp->saved_proto.tcp.port);

	if (port < min || port > max)
		port = min;

	for (i = 0; i < range_size; i++) {
  		exp->tuple.dst.u.tcp.port = htons(port);
  		ret = nf_ct_expect_related(exp, 0);
		if (ret != -EBUSY)
 			break;
		port++;
		if (port > max)
			port = min;
  	}

	if (ret != 0) {
	...

AFAICS this is the same, we loop at most range_size times,
in case range_size is 64k, we will loop through all (hmmm,
not good actually, but better make that a different change)
else through given min - max range.

If orig port was in-range, we try it first, then increment.
If port exceeds upper bound, cycle back to min.

What do you think?