On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 08:12:53PM +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 08:00:04PM +0200, Florian Westphal wrote:
> > Fernando Fernandez Mancera <ffmancera@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > El 16 de julio de 2019 18:47:11 CEST, Phil Sutter <phil@xxxxxx> escribió:
> > > >Hi Pablo,
> > > >
> > > >On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 01:51:20PM +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> > > >[...]
> > > >> diff --git a/src/evaluate.c b/src/evaluate.c
> > > >> index f95f42e1067a..cd566e856a11 100644
> > > >> --- a/src/evaluate.c
> > > >> +++ b/src/evaluate.c
> > > >> @@ -1984,17 +1984,9 @@ static int stmt_evaluate_verdict(struct
> > > >eval_ctx *ctx, struct stmt *stmt)
> > > >> case EXPR_VERDICT:
> > > >> if (stmt->expr->verdict != NFT_CONTINUE)
> > > >> stmt->flags |= STMT_F_TERMINAL;
> > > >> - if (stmt->expr->chain != NULL) {
> > > >> - if (expr_evaluate(ctx, &stmt->expr->chain) < 0)
> > > >> - return -1;
> > > >> - if ((stmt->expr->chain->etype != EXPR_SYMBOL &&
> > > >> - stmt->expr->chain->etype != EXPR_VALUE) ||
> > > >> - stmt->expr->chain->symtype != SYMBOL_VALUE) {
> > > >> - return stmt_error(ctx, stmt,
> > > >> - "invalid verdict chain expression %s\n",
> > > >> - expr_name(stmt->expr->chain));
> > > >> - }
> > > >> - }
> > > >
> > > >According to my logs, this bit was added by Fernando to cover for
> > > >invalid variable values[1]. So I fear we can't just drop this check.
> > > >
> > > >Cheers, Phil
> > > >
> > > >[1] I didn't check with current sources, but back then the following
> > > > variable contents were problematic:
> > > >
> > > > * define foo = @set1 (a set named 'set1' must exist)
> > > > * define foo = { 1024 }
> > > > * define foo = *
> > >
> > > Yes I am looking to the report and why current version fails when the jump is to a non-base chain because I tested that some months ago.
> > >
> > > I will catch up with more details in a few hours. Sorry for the inconveniences.
> >
> > Fernando, in case Pablos patch v2 fixes the reported bug, could you
> > followup with a test case? It would help when someone tries to remove
> > "unneeded code" in the future ;-)
>
> I'm not sure it's worth a test for this unlikely corner case.
>
> There are thousands of paths where we're not performing strict
> expression validation as in this case... and if you really want to get
> this right.
Having said this, if you want a test for this specific case, I really
don't mind :-)
