Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 03:29:27PM -0400, Aaron Conole wrote:
> > Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> [...]
> > > From c1a731c68791bcd504a7fe5d28f5f0fd59d66118 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > > From: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 08:14:03 +0200
> > > Subject: [PATCH nf,v3] netfilter: nf_queue: don't re-enter same hook on packet
> > > reinjection
> > >
> > > If the packet is accepted, we have to skip the current hook from where
> > > the packet was enqueued. Thus, we can emulate the previous
> > > list_for_each_entry_continue() behaviour happening from nf_reinject(),
> > > otherwise the packets gets enqueued over and over again.
> > >
> > > Fixes: e3b37f11e6e4 ("netfilter: replace list_head with single linked list")
> > > Signed-off-by: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > net/netfilter/nf_queue.c | 6 ++++--
> > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/net/netfilter/nf_queue.c b/net/netfilter/nf_queue.c
> > > index 96964a0070e1..0b5ac3c9c2bc 100644
> > > --- a/net/netfilter/nf_queue.c
> > > +++ b/net/netfilter/nf_queue.c
> > > @@ -187,8 +187,10 @@ void nf_reinject(struct nf_queue_entry *entry, unsigned int verdict)
> > > entry->state.thresh = INT_MIN;
> > >
> > > if (verdict == NF_ACCEPT) {
> > > - next_hook:
> > > - verdict = nf_iterate(skb, &entry->state, &hook_entry);
> > > + hook_entry = rcu_dereference(hook_entry->next);
> > > + if (hook_entry)
> > > +next_hook:
> >
> > Should the above two lines be transposed to this?
> >
> > next_hook:
> > if (hook_entry)
> >
> > Sorry if I'm misunderstanding it. Too many special cases for my tiny
> > brain...
>
> Right, my patch is still not correct.
>
> I think this should be it:
>
> if (verdict == NF_ACCEPT) {
> next_hook:
> hook_entry = rcu_dereference(hook_entry->next);
> if (hook_entry)
> verdict = nf_iterate(skb, &entry->state, &hook_entry);
>
> So we jump to "next_hook" in case of NF_QUEUE verdict with bypass flag
> set on. In that case, we need to continue just after the current hook
> entry to emulate the behaviour that we previously have via
> list_for_each_entry_continue().
>
> This NF_QUEUE handling is also broken from nf_hook_slow() path, right?
Yes. As you already indicate, list_for_each_entry_continue() resumes
after the current elem, this isn't true anymore.
So for nf_queue we need to move to hook_entry->next in ACCEPT case,
and, for nf_hook_slow, we need to do the same when hitting
(verdict & NF_VERDICT_FLAG_QUEUE_BYPASS))
goto next_hook;
branch.
--
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
