Problem with iptables-translate and tcp flags match

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi,

I have a problem which exposes bugs in both iptables-translate and nft
and am a bit at a loss with it. But first things first:

| $ iptables-translate -A INPUT -p tcp -m tcp --tcp-flags FIN,SYN FIN,SYN -j DROP
| nft add rule ip filter INPUT tcp flags & fin|syn == fin|syn counter drop

This only appears to be fine at first glance. When adding the nftables
rule, the outcome is this:

| tcp flags & (fin | syn) | fin == fin | syn counter packets 0 bytes 0

Of course, this is obviously wrong. Looking at the output of
iptables-translate again, it becomes clear that nftables can only
interpret this the wrong way, categorically because binary AND takes
precedence over binary OR - so iptables-translate is broken in that it
should add parentheses like so:

| nft add rule ip filter INPUT tcp flags & (fin|syn) == fin|syn counter drop

And indeed this leads to expected results in nftables ruleset. On the
other hand what nftables interprets the wrong statement into looks a bit
fishy as well, but that's another topic - my issue with nftables is
exposed when I apply my quick hack to resolve this, which is to just
output the missing parentheses print_tcp_xlate(): iptables-translate
then outputs the following:

| nft add rule ip filter INPUT tcp flags & (fin|syn) == (fin|syn) counter drop

But nftables in return rejects it:

| <cmdline>:1:45-45: Error: syntax error, unexpected '('
| add rule ip filter INPUT tcp flags & (syn|fin) == (syn|fin) counter
|                                                   ^

The error message is emitted by the parser (which I am still at war
with) and in my opinion it should allow the parentheses on the right
side of that relational expression.

So here's a number of question marks for you:
* Am I on the right track with adding parentheses to iptables-translate
  output at all?
* If so, where would I adjust parser_bison.y to allow for them? Maybe
  rhs_expr should be extended to allow for it, but it's so generic I'm
  afraid of side-effects. Or is the better way to add another case to
  relational_expr which explicitly mentions the parentheses around
  rhs_expr?

Thanks, Phil
--
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



[Index of Archives]     [Netfitler Users]     [LARTC]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Forum]

  Powered by Linux