[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240318201608.GC185808@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2024 20:16:08 +0000
From: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
To: Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@...il.com>
Cc: edumazet@...gle.com, pablo@...filter.org, kadlec@...filter.org,
fw@...len.de, kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com,
davem@...emloft.net, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org,
coreteam@...filter.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Jason Xing <kernelxing@...cent.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH nf-next v2] netfilter: conntrack: avoid sending RST to
reply out-of-window skb
On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 03:05:50PM +0800, Jason Xing wrote:
> From: Jason Xing <kernelxing@...cent.com>
>
> Supposing we set DNAT policy converting a_port to b_port on the
> server at the beginning, the socket is set up by using 4-tuple:
>
> client_ip:client_port <--> server_ip:b_port
>
> Then, some strange skbs from client or gateway, say, out-of-window
> skbs are eventually sent to the server_ip:a_port (not b_port)
> in TCP layer due to netfilter clearing skb->_nfct value in
> nf_conntrack_in() function. Why? Because the tcp_in_window()
> considers the incoming skb as an invalid skb by returning
> NFCT_TCP_INVALID.
>
> At last, the TCP layer process the out-of-window
> skb (client_ip,client_port,server_ip,a_port) and try to look up
> such an socket in tcp_v4_rcv(), as we can see, it will fail for sure
> because the port is a_port not our expected b_port and then send
> back an RST to the client.
>
> The detailed call graphs go like this:
> 1)
> nf_conntrack_in()
> -> nf_conntrack_handle_packet()
> -> nf_conntrack_tcp_packet()
> -> tcp_in_window() // tests if the skb is out-of-window
> -> return -NF_ACCEPT;
> -> skb->_nfct = 0; // if the above line returns a negative value
> 2)
> tcp_v4_rcv()
> -> __inet_lookup_skb() // fails, then jump to no_tcp_socket
> -> tcp_v4_send_reset()
>
> The moment the client receives the RST, it will drop. So the RST
> skb doesn't hurt the client (maybe hurt some gateway which cancels
> the session when filtering the RST without validating
> the sequence because of performance reason). Well, it doesn't
> matter. However, we can see many strange RST in flight.
>
> The key reason why I wrote this patch is that I don't think
> the behaviour is expected because the RFC 793 defines this
> case:
>
> "If the connection is in a synchronized state (ESTABLISHED,
> FIN-WAIT-1, FIN-WAIT-2, CLOSE-WAIT, CLOSING, LAST-ACK, TIME-WAIT),
> any unacceptable segment (out of window sequence number or
> unacceptible acknowledgment number) must elicit only an empty
Not for those following along, it appears that RFC 793 does misspell
unacceptable as above. Perhaps spelling was different in 1981 :)
> acknowledgment segment containing the current send-sequence number
> and an acknowledgment..."
>
> I think, even we have set DNAT policy, it would be better if the
> whole process/behaviour adheres to the original TCP behaviour as
> default.
>
> Suggested-by: Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
> Signed-off-by: Jason Xing <kernelxing@...cent.com>
...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists