From: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@xxxxxxxxxx>
commit 72239f2795fab9a58633bd0399698ff7581534a3 upstream.
Case a1. for overlap detection in __nft_rbtree_insert() is not a valid
one: start-after-start is not needed to detect any type of interval
overlap and it actually results in a false positive if, while
descending the tree, this is the only step we hit after starting from
the root.
This introduced a regression, as reported by Pablo, in Python tests
cases ip/ip.t and ip/numgen.t:
ip/ip.t: ERROR: line 124: add rule ip test-ip4 input ip hdrlength vmap { 0-4 : drop, 5 : accept, 6 : continue } counter: This rule should not have failed.
ip/numgen.t: ERROR: line 7: add rule ip test-ip4 pre dnat to numgen inc mod 10 map { 0-5 : 192.168.10.100, 6-9 : 192.168.20.200}: This rule should not have failed.
Drop case a1. and renumber others, so that they are a bit clearer. In
order for these diagrams to be readily understandable, a bigger rework
is probably needed, such as an ASCII art of the actual rbtree (instead
of a flattened version).
Shell script test sets/0044interval_overlap_0 should cover all
possible cases for false negatives, so I consider that test case still
sufficient after this change.
v2: Fix comments for cases a3. and b3.
Reported-by: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Fixes: 7c84d41416d8 ("netfilter: nft_set_rbtree: Detect partial overlaps on insertion")
Signed-off-by: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
net/netfilter/nft_set_rbtree.c | 23 +++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
--- a/net/netfilter/nft_set_rbtree.c
+++ b/net/netfilter/nft_set_rbtree.c
@@ -218,27 +218,26 @@ static int __nft_rbtree_insert(const str
/* Detect overlaps as we descend the tree. Set the flag in these cases:
*
- * a1. |__ _ _? >|__ _ _ (insert start after existing start)
- * a2. _ _ __>| ?_ _ __| (insert end before existing end)
- * a3. _ _ ___| ?_ _ _>| (insert end after existing end)
- * a4. >|__ _ _ _ _ __| (insert start before existing end)
+ * a1. _ _ __>| ?_ _ __| (insert end before existing end)
+ * a2. _ _ ___| ?_ _ _>| (insert end after existing end)
+ * a3. _ _ ___? >|_ _ __| (insert start before existing end)
*
* and clear it later on, as we eventually reach the points indicated by
* '?' above, in the cases described below. We'll always meet these
* later, locally, due to tree ordering, and overlaps for the intervals
* that are the closest together are always evaluated last.
*
- * b1. |__ _ _! >|__ _ _ (insert start after existing end)
- * b2. _ _ __>| !_ _ __| (insert end before existing start)
- * b3. !_____>| (insert end after existing start)
+ * b1. _ _ __>| !_ _ __| (insert end before existing start)
+ * b2. _ _ ___| !_ _ _>| (insert end after existing start)
+ * b3. _ _ ___! >|_ _ __| (insert start after existing end)
*
- * Case a4. resolves to b1.:
+ * Case a3. resolves to b3.:
* - if the inserted start element is the leftmost, because the '0'
* element in the tree serves as end element
* - otherwise, if an existing end is found. Note that end elements are
* always inserted after corresponding start elements.
*
- * For a new, rightmost pair of elements, we'll hit cases b1. and b3.,
+ * For a new, rightmost pair of elements, we'll hit cases b3. and b2.,
* in that order.
*
* The flag is also cleared in two special cases:
@@ -262,9 +261,9 @@ static int __nft_rbtree_insert(const str
p = &parent->rb_left;
if (nft_rbtree_interval_start(new)) {
- overlap = nft_rbtree_interval_start(rbe) &&
- nft_set_elem_active(&rbe->ext,
- genmask);
+ if (nft_rbtree_interval_end(rbe) &&
+ nft_set_elem_active(&rbe->ext, genmask))
+ overlap = false;
} else {
overlap = nft_rbtree_interval_end(rbe) &&
nft_set_elem_active(&rbe->ext,
