Phil Sutter <phil@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > Or at least mention that this is for iptables-nft/NFT_COMPAT sake?
>
> I could move it into NFTA_RULE_COMPAT.
Fine with me.
> > Perhaps its better to use two distinct attributes?
> >
> > NFTA_RULE_EXPRESSIONS_COMPAT (input)
> > NFTA_RULE_EXPRESSIONS_ACTUAL (output)?
>
> With NFTA_RULE_EXPRESSIONS_ACTUAL replacing NFTA_RULE_EXPRESSIONS?
Yes, NFTA_RULE_EXPRESSIONS is the 'compat kludge',
NFTA_RULE_EXPRESSIONS_ACTUAL the active one.
> > The switcheroo of ALT (old crap on input, actual live ruleset on output)
> > is very unintuitive.
>
> Well, providing something that replaces the content of
> NFTA_RULE_EXPRESSIONS is the basic concept of this approach. Restricting
> it to output only is not possible since old user space uses it for
> input. I guess one could make new user space use the *_COMPAT/*_ACTUAL
> attributes above but kernel still has to fall back to plain
> *_EXPRESSIONS.
Yep.
> Adding the two attributes above and using *_COMPAT for input only and
> *_ACTUAL for output only is probably a trivial change though.
Right. I don't mind but its perhaps a bit clearer as to what is going
on.
> [...]
> > > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/netfilter/nf_tables.h b/include/uapi/linux/netfilter/nf_tables.h
> > > index cfa844da1ce61..2dff92f527429 100644
> > > --- a/include/uapi/linux/netfilter/nf_tables.h
> > > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/netfilter/nf_tables.h
> > > @@ -247,6 +247,8 @@ enum nft_chain_attributes {
> > > * @NFTA_RULE_USERDATA: user data (NLA_BINARY, NFT_USERDATA_MAXLEN)
> > > * @NFTA_RULE_ID: uniquely identifies a rule in a transaction (NLA_U32)
> > > * @NFTA_RULE_POSITION_ID: transaction unique identifier of the previous rule (NLA_U32)
> > > + * @NFTA_RULE_CHAIN_ID: add the rule to chain by ID, alternative to @NFTA_RULE_CHAIN (NLA_U32)
> > > + * @NFTA_RULE_ALT_EXPRESSIONS: expressions to swap with @NFTA_RULE_EXPRESSIONS for dumps (NLA_NESTED: nft_expr_attributes)
> > > */
> > > enum nft_rule_attributes {
> > > NFTA_RULE_UNSPEC,
> > > @@ -261,6 +263,7 @@ enum nft_rule_attributes {
> > > NFTA_RULE_ID,
> > > NFTA_RULE_POSITION_ID,
> > > NFTA_RULE_CHAIN_ID,
> > > + NFTA_RULE_ALT_EXPRESSIONS,
> >
> > You need to update the nla_policy too.
>
> ACK, thanks!
[..]
> > > + if (nla[NFTA_RULE_ALT_EXPRESSIONS]) {
> > > + int dlen = nla_len(nla[NFTA_RULE_ALT_EXPRESSIONS]);
> > > + alt_expr = kvmalloc(sizeof(*alt_expr) + dlen, GFP_KERNEL);
> >
> > Once nla_policy provides a maxlen this is fine.
>
> Hmm. I could define this max length as
> | NFT_RULE_MAXEXPRS * max(nft_expr_ops::size)
> given the currently existing nft_expr_ops instances in kernel. This
> isn't pretty accurate though. Or I do a "fake" parsing of the nested
> expression list only checking the number of elements? IIUC, this is the
> only restriction applied to NFTA_RULE_EXPRESSIONS - at least I don't see
> the size of each NFTA_LIST_ELEM being checked against its
> nft_expr_ops::size. Or am I missing something?
Actually you don't need a maxlen at all, sorry. I saw the nla_len and
thought NLA_BINARY but you could do this:
- [NFTA_RULE_EXPRESSIONS] = { .type = NLA_NESTED },
+ [NFTA_RULE_EXPRESSIONS] = NLA_POLICY_NESTED_ARRAY(nft_expr_policy),
... and use the same for the COMPAT_EXPRESSIONS (or whatever name
will be chosen).
(This won't do full validation of all attributes because the policy
for expr 'X' isn't known at compile time).
> > > + nla_memcpy(alt_expr->data,
> > > + nla[NFTA_RULE_ALT_EXPRESSIONS], dlen);
> >
> > Hmm, I wonder if this isn't a problem.
> > The kernel will now dump arbitrary data to userspace, whereas without
> > this patch the nla data is generated by kernel, i.e. never malformed.
> >
> > I wonder if the alt blob needs to go through some type of validation
> > too?
>
> Given that the kernel doesn't use the ALT data, I liked the fact that it
> may contain expressions it doesn't even support anymore. Upholding this
> allows to disable nft_compat in kernel once iptables-nft produces native
> expressions for everything.
>
> I get your point about dumping tainted data. Does a shallow syntactic
> check suffice, is it required to verify each expression's syntax or even
> its semantics?
I was just wondering if we should at least verify that netlink
attributes and sizes match, not that the expressions themselves are
parseable/available.
But its impossible to do so if the expression isn't available because
we then have no policy either.
So perhaps above NLA_POLICY_NESTED_ARRAY() is enough after all.
