On Di, 2015-01-13 at 09:53 +0530, Rahul Sharma wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 5:21 PM, Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 04:38:16PM +0530, Rahul Sharma wrote:
> >> Hi Pablo, Hannes
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 9:20 PM, Hannes Frederic Sowa
> >> <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > On Fr, 2015-01-09 at 12:45 +0100, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> >> >> Hi Hannes,
> >> >>
> >> >> On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 12:34:15PM +0100, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> >> >> > On Fri, Jan 9, 2015, at 08:18, Rahul Sharma wrote:
> >> >> > > Hi Pablo,
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 5:35 AM, Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> >> > > wrote:
> >> >> > > > On Thu, Jan 08, 2015 at 11:39:16PM +0100, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> >> >> > > >> Hi Pablo,
> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> > > >> On Thu, Jan 8, 2015, at 21:53, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> >> >> > > >> > I'm afraid we cannot just get rid of that !ipv6_ext_hdr() check. The
> >> >> > > >> > ipv6_find_hdr() function is designed to return the transport protocol.
> >> >> > > >> > After the proposed change, it will return extension header numbers.
> >> >> > > >> > This will break existing ip6tables rulesets since the `-p' option
> >> >> > > >> > relies on this function to match the transport protocol.
> >> >> > > >> >
> >> >> > > >> > Note that the AH header is skipped (see code a bit below this
> >> >> > > >> > problematic fragmentation handling) so the follow up header after the
> >> >> > > >> > AH header is returned as the transport header.
> >> >> > > >> >
> >> >> > > >> > We can probably return the AH protocol number for non-1st fragments.
> >> >> > > >> > However, that would be something new to ip6tables since nobody has
> >> >> > > >> > ever seen packet matching `-p ah' rules. Thus, we restore control to
> >> >> > > >> > the user to allow this, but we would accept all kind of fragmented AH
> >> >> > > >> > traffic through the firewall since we cannot know what transport
> >> >> > > >> > protocol contains from non-1st fragments (unless I'm missing anything,
> >> >> > > >> > I need to have a closer look at this again tomorrow with fresher
> >> >> > > >> > mind).
> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> > > >> The code in question is guarded by (_frag_off != 0), so we are
> >> >> > > >> definitely processing a non-1st fragment currently. The -p match would
> >> >> > > >> happen at the time when the packet is reassembled and thus ipv6_find_hdr
> >> >> > > >> will find the real transport (final) header at this point (I hope I
> >> >> > > >> followed the code correctly here).
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > Then, Rahul should get things working by modprobing nf_defrag_ipv6.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > I already had nf_defrag_ipv6 installed when the issue occured. But I
> >> >> > > see ip6table_raw_hook returning NF_DROP for the second fragment.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > That's what I expected. I think the change only affects hooks before
> >> >> > reassembly.
> >> >>
> >> >> reassembly happens at NF_IP6_PRI_CONNTRACK_DEFRAG (-400), so that
> >> >> happens before NF_IP6_PRI_RAW (-300) in IPv6 which is where the raw
> >> >> table is placed.
> >> >
> >> > I tried to reproduce it, but couldn't get non-1st fragments getting
> >> > dropped during traversal of the raw table. They get dropped earlier at
> >> > during reassembly or pass.
> >> >
> >> > I agree with Pablo, I also would like to see more data.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> > Hannes
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> I enabled pr_debug() and there was no error in nf_ct_frag6_gather().
> >> It seems to have defragmented the packet correctly. As expected,
> >> ipv6_defrag() returns NF_STOLEN for the first packet after queuing it.
> >> For the next fragment, ipv6_defrag() calls nf_ct_frag6_output() after
> >> after reassembling it.
> >
> > nf_ct_frag6_output() doesn't exist anymore. You're using an old
> > kernel, you should have started by telling so in your report.
> >
> > See 6aafeef ("netfilter: push reasm skb through instead of original
> > frag skbs").
>
> I apologize for not mentioning the kernel version in my first mail. I
> had suspected problem in ipv6_find_hdr, the code for which was same.
> Anyway, thanks for the help. I ll try to figure out how to make this
> work in my kernel.
If you have time could you quickly test a recent net-next kernel?
Thanks,
Hannes
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
