Message-ID: <CAL+tcoBWGEtirQXUKtQ7EnveXc_T3aOCydG_uGUmew4x56hifw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2024 08:42:20 +0800
From: Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@...il.com>
To: Jozsef Kadlecsik <kadlec@...ckhole.kfki.hu>
Cc: Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>, edumazet@...gle.com, 
	Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>, kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, 
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, 
	coreteam@...filter.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, 
	Jason Xing <kernelxing@...cent.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] netfilter: conntrack: avoid sending RST to reply
 out-of-window skb

On Fri, Mar 8, 2024 at 3:00 AM Jozsef Kadlecsik
<kadlec@...ckhole.kfki.hu> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 7 Mar 2024, Jason Xing wrote:
>
> > > > Allow me to finish the full sentence: my only purpose is not to let
> > > > the TCP layer send strange RST to the _established_ socket due to
> > > > receiving strange out-of-window skbs.
> > >
> > > I don't understand why do you want to modify conntrack at all: conntrack
> > > itself does not send RST packets. And the TCP layer don't send RST packets
> > > to out of window ones either.
> >
> > To normal TCP flow, you're right because the TCP layer doesn't send RST
> > to out-of-window skbs.
> >
> > But the DNAT policy on the server should have converted the port of
> > incoming skb from A_port to B_port as my description in this patch said.
> >
> > It actually doesn't happen. The conntrack clears the skb->_nfct value
> > after returning -NF_ACCEPT in nf_conntrack_tcp_packet() and then DNAT
> > would not convert the A_port to B_port.
>
> The packet is INVALID therefore it's not NATed. I don't think that could
> simply be changed in netfilter.

Well, what would you suggest ? :)

>
> > So the TCP layer is not able to look up the correct socket (client_ip,
> > client_port, server_ip, B_port) because A_port doesn't match B_port,
> > then an RST would be sent to the client.
>
> Yes, if you let the packet continue to traverse the stack.

Yes!

>
> > > The only possibility I see for such packets is an iptables/nftables rule
> > > which rejects packets classified as INVALID by conntrack.
> > >
> > > As Florian suggested, why don't you change that rule?
> >
> > As I said, just for the workaround method, only turning on that sysctl
> > knob can solve the issue.
>
> Sorry, but why? If you drop the packet by a rule, then there's no need to
> use the sysctl setting and there's no unwanted RST packets.

Oh, I was trying to clarify that using some knob can work around which
is not my original intention, but I don't seek a workaround method. I
didn't use --cstate INVALID to drop those INVALID packets in
production, which I feel should work.

For this particular case, I feel it's not that good to ask
users/customers to add more rules or turn on sysctl knob to prevent
seeing such RSTs.

Instead I thought we could naturally stop sending such RSTs as default
without asking other people to change something. People shouldn't see
the RSTs really. That's why I wrote this patch.

I hope I'm right... :S

Thanks,
Jason

>
> Best regards,
> Jozsef
>
> > > The conntrack states are not fine-grained to express different TCP states
> > > which covered with INVALID. It was never a good idea to reject INVALID
> > > packets or let them through (leaking internal addresses).
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Jozsef
> > >
> > > > > > Besides, resorting to turning on nf_conntrack_tcp_be_liberal sysctl
> > > > > > knob seems odd to me though it can workaround :S
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't see a better alternative, other than -p tcp -m conntrack
> > > > > --ctstate INVALID -j DROP rule, if you wish for tcp stack to not see
> > > > > such packets.
> > > > >
> > > > > > I would like to prevent sending such an RST as default behaviour.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't see a way to make this work out of the box, without possible
> > > > > unwanted side effects.
> > > > >
> > > > > MAYBE we could drop IFF we check that the conntrack entry candidate
> > > > > that fails sequence validation has NAT translation applied to it, and
> > > > > thus the '-NF_ACCEPT' packet won't be translated.
> > > > >
> > > > > Not even compile tested:
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_proto_tcp.c b/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_proto_tcp.c
> > > > > --- a/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_proto_tcp.c
> > > > > +++ b/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_proto_tcp.c
> > > > > @@ -1256,10 +1256,14 @@ int nf_conntrack_tcp_packet(struct nf_conn *ct,
> > > > >         case NFCT_TCP_IGNORE:
> > > > >                 spin_unlock_bh(&ct->lock);
> > > > >                 return NF_ACCEPT;
> > > > > -       case NFCT_TCP_INVALID:
> > > > > +       case NFCT_TCP_INVALID: {
> > > > > +               verdict = -NF_ACCEPT;
> > > > > +               if (ct->status & IPS_NAT_MASK)
> > > > > +                       res = NF_DROP; /* skb would miss nat transformation */
> > > >
> > > > Above line, I guess, should be 'verdict = NF_DROP'? Then this skb
> > > > would be dropped in nf_hook_slow() eventually and would not be passed
> > > > to the TCP layer.
> > > >
> > > > >                 nf_tcp_handle_invalid(ct, dir, index, skb, state);
> > > > >                 spin_unlock_bh(&ct->lock);
> > > > > -               return -NF_ACCEPT;
> > > > > +               return verdict;
> > > > > +       }
> > > > >         case NFCT_TCP_ACCEPT:
> > > > >                 break;
> > > > >         }
> > > >
> > > > Great! I think your draft patch makes sense really, which takes NAT
> > > > into consideration.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > But I don't really see the advantage compared to doing drop decision in
> > > > > iptables/nftables ruleset.
> > > >
> > > > From our views, especially to kernel developers, you're right: we
> > > > could easily turn on that knob or add a drop policy to prevent it
> > > > happening. Actually I did this in production to prevent such a case.
> > > > It surely works.
> > > >
> > > > But from the views of normal users and those who do not understand how
> > > > it works in the kernel, it looks strange: people may ask why we get
> > > > some unknown RSTs in flight?
> > > >
> > > > > I also have a hunch that someone will eventually complain about this
> > > > > change in behavior.
> > > >
> > > > Well, I still think the patch you suggested is proper and don't know
> > > > why people could complain about it.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for your patience :)
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Jason
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > E-mail  : kadlec@...ckhole.kfki.hu, kadlecsik.jozsef@...ner.hu
> > > PGP key : https://wigner.hu/~kadlec/pgp_public_key.txt
> > > Address : Wigner Research Centre for Physics
> > >           H-1525 Budapest 114, POB. 49, Hungary
> >
>
> --
> E-mail  : kadlec@...ckhole.kfki.hu, kadlecsik.jozsef@...ner.hu
> PGP key : https://wigner.hu/~kadlec/pgp_public_key.txt
> Address : Wigner Research Centre for Physics
>           H-1525 Budapest 114, POB. 49, Hungary

Powered by blists - more mailing lists