Phil Sutter <phil@xxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 11:31:09PM +0200, Florian Westphal wrote:
> > Florian Westphal <fw@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > else, next payload is stacked via 'CTX_PREV_PAYLOAD'.
> > >
> > > Example breakage:
> > >
> > > ip saddr 1.2.3.4 meta l4proto tcp
> > > ... is dumped as
> > > -s 6.0.0.0 -p tcp
> > >
> > > iptables-nft -s 1.2.3.4 -p tcp is dumped correctly, because
> > > the expressions are ordered like:
> > > meta l4proto tcp ip saddr 1.2.3.4
> > >
> > > ... and 'meta l4proto' will clear the PAYLOAD flag.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 250dce876d92 ("nft-shared: support native tcp port delinearize")
> > > Signed-off-by: Florian Westphal <fw@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > iptables/nft-shared.c | 2 ++
> > > .../ipt-restore/0018-multi-payload_0 | 27 +++++++++++++++++++
> > > 2 files changed, 29 insertions(+)
> > > create mode 100755 iptables/tests/shell/testcases/ipt-restore/0018-multi-payload_0
> > >
> > > diff --git a/iptables/nft-shared.c b/iptables/nft-shared.c
> > > index 71e2f18dab92..66e09e8fd533 100644
> > > --- a/iptables/nft-shared.c
> > > +++ b/iptables/nft-shared.c
> > > @@ -986,6 +986,8 @@ static void nft_parse_cmp(struct nft_xt_ctx *ctx, struct nftnl_expr *e)
> > > nft_parse_transport(ctx, e, ctx->cs);
> > > break;
> > > }
> > > +
> > > + ctx->flags &= ~NFT_XT_CTX_PAYLOAD;
> > > }
> >
> > This isn't ideal either since this breaks dissection of '1-42' ranges
> > that use two compare operands, i.e.:
> >
> > cmp reg1 gte 1
> > cmp reg1 lte 42
> >
> > ...as first cmp 'hides' reg1 again.
> >
> > I'd propose to rework this context stuff:
> > no more payload/meta/whatever flags, instead 'mirror' the raw data
> > registers.
> >
> > Other ideas/suggestions?
>
> When do we use multiple flags? I see we need NFT_XT_CTX_BITWISE in
> addition to NFT_XT_CTX_META. Do we need e.g. NFT_XT_CTX_META and
> NFT_XT_CTX_PAYLOAD at the same time?
No, that makes no sense. I'm working on a new decoder that handles
each dreg individually.
Then, only one of meta/immediate/payload can be active per register.
bitwise can be set in addition.
I hope to have a rough RFC draft ready by tomorrw.
One big advantage is that we would no longer have to clear the flags
in the individual nft_expr -> xt_match/target dissectors.
Instead, those are always auto-cleared when a nft expressio writes
to the register.
> the LHS expression which is overwritten by each consecutive LHS
> expression and a bitfield for the "on top" stuff.
Yes, thats the same concept that I'm aiming for:
+enum nft_ctx_reg_type {
+ NFT_XT_REG_UNDEF,
+ NFT_XT_REG_PAYLOAD,
+ NFT_XT_REG_IMMEDIATE,
+ NFT_XT_REG_META,
+};
+
+struct nft_xt_ctx_reg {
+ enum nft_ctx_reg_type type:8;
+
+ union {
+ struct {
+ uint32_t base;
+ uint32_t offset;
+ uint32_t len;
+ } payload;
+ struct {
+ uint32_t data[4];
+ uint8_t len;
+ } immediate;
+ struct {
+ uint32_t key;
+ } meta;
+ };
+
+ struct {
+ uint32_t mask[4];
+ uint32_t xor[4];
+ bool set;
+ } bitwise;
+};
