On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 12:24:28PM -0700, Joe Stringer wrote:
> 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.
I can remove this here before applying if that is fine to you, so you
don't need to resubmit.
> >>> + 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^
We're converging to netdev comment style, ie.
* ...
* established packets.
*/
I know we have a bunch of comments in netfilter ending like the one
above, but ideally it would be good to use this comment style.
> >>
> >>> + 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?
I can take this, yes.
--
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
