On 18 April 2017 at 11:33, Jarno Rajahalme <jarno@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On Apr 18, 2017, at 11:27 AM, Joe Stringer <joe@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On 14 April 2017 at 14:26, Jarno Rajahalme <jarno@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Conntrack helpers do not check for a potentially clashing conntrack
>>> entry when creating a new expectation. Also, nf_conntrack_in() will
>>> check expectations (via init_conntrack()) only if a conntrack entry
>>> can not be found. The expectation for a packet which also matches an
>>> existing conntrack entry will not be removed by conntrack, and is
>>> currently handled inconsistently by OVS, as OVS expects the
>>> expectation to be removed when the connection tracking entry matching
>>> that expectation is confirmed.
>>>
>>> It should be noted that normally an IP stack would not allow reuse of
>>> a 5-tuple of an old (possibly lingering) connection for a new data
>>> connection, so this is somewhat unlikely corner case. However, it is
>>> possible that a misbehaving source could cause conntrack entries be
>>> created that could then interfere with new related connections.
>>>
>>> Fix this in the OVS module by deleting the clashing conntrack entry
>>> after an expectation has been matched. This causes the following
>>> nf_conntrack_in() call also find the expectation and remove it when
>>> creating the new conntrack entry, as well as the forthcoming reply
>>> direction packets to match the new related connection instead of the
>>> old clashing conntrack entry.
>>>
>>> Fixes: 7f8a436eaa2c ("openvswitch: Add conntrack action")
>>> Reported-by: Yang Song <yangsong@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jarno Rajahalme <jarno@xxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>
>> Hi Jarno,
>>
>>> v3: Removed unnecessary if statement.
>>> v2: Fixed commit title.
>>>
>>> net/openvswitch/conntrack.c | 31 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>> 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/net/openvswitch/conntrack.c b/net/openvswitch/conntrack.c
>>> index 7b2c2fc..d796ae7 100644
>>> --- a/net/openvswitch/conntrack.c
>>> +++ b/net/openvswitch/conntrack.c
>>> @@ -514,10 +514,39 @@ ovs_ct_expect_find(struct net *net, const struct nf_conntrack_zone *zone,
>>> u16 proto, const struct sk_buff *skb)
>>> {
>>> struct nf_conntrack_tuple tuple;
>>> + struct nf_conntrack_expect *exp;
>>>
>>> if (!nf_ct_get_tuplepr(skb, skb_network_offset(skb), proto, net, &tuple))
>>> return NULL;
>>> - return __nf_ct_expect_find(net, zone, &tuple);
>>> +
>>> + exp = __nf_ct_expect_find(net, zone, &tuple);
>>> +
>>
>> Extraneous whitespace^
>>
>
> You mean the empty line?
Yeah.
>>> + if (exp) {
>>> + struct nf_conntrack_tuple_hash *h;
>>> +
>>> + /* Delete existing conntrack entry, if it clashes with the
>>> + * expectation. This can happen since conntrack ALGs do not
>>> + * check for clashes between (new) expectations and existing
>>> + * conntrack entries. nf_conntrack_in() will check the
>>> + * expectations only if a conntrack entry can not be found,
>>> + * which can lead to OVS finding the expectation (here) in the
>>> + * init direction, but which will not be removed by the
>>> + * nf_conntrack_in() call, if a matching conntrack entry is
>>> + * found instead. In this case all init direction packets
>>> + * would be reported as new related packets, while reply
>>> + * direction packets would be reported as un-related
>>> + * established packets. */
>>> +
>>
>> Extraneous whitespace^
>>
>>> + h = nf_conntrack_find_get(net, zone, &tuple);
>>> + if (h) {
>>> + struct nf_conn *ct = nf_ct_tuplehash_to_ctrack(h);
>>> +
>>> + nf_ct_delete(ct, 0, 0);
>>> + nf_conntrack_put(&ct->ct_general);
>>
>> Do we need the extra nf_conntrack_put() here? If
>> nf_conntrack_find_get() returns an entry, we'll call nf_ct_delete()
>> which releases a reference on the CT entry.
>
> There is one reference held by the table, but nf_conntrack_find_get() takes another. nf_ct_delete() releases the reference held by the table as the entry is removed, but we need to explicitly release the reference taken by nf_conntrack_find_get().
Ah, makes sense.
Acked-by: Joe Stringer <joe@xxxxxxx>
Did you intend for Pablo to take this? Pablo, is this fine or should
Jarno resubmit against net?
--
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
