lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Jun]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] net: netfilter: Add RFC-7597 Section 5.1 PSID support
Cole Dishington <Cole.Dishington@alliedtelesis.co.nz> wrote:
> Comments:
> Selecting the ports for psid needs to be in nf_nat_core since the PSID ranges are not a single range. e.g. offset=1024, PSID=0, psid_length=8 generates the ranges 1024-1027, 2048-2051, ..., 63488-63491, ... (example taken from RFC7597 B.2).
> This is why it is enough to set NF_NAT_RANGE_PROTO_SPECIFIED and init upper/lower boundaries.

I suspect this misses a NOT. But current algorithm has problems, see
below.

> + if (range->flags & NF_NAT_RANGE_PSID) {
> + /* PSID defines a group of port ranges, per PSID. PSID
> + * is already contained in min and max.
> + */
> + unsigned int min_to_max, base;
> +
> + min = ntohs(range->min_proto.all);
> + max = ntohs(range->max_proto.all);
> + base = ntohs(range->base_proto.all);
> + min_to_max = max - min;
> + for (; max <= (1 << 16) - 1; min += base, max = min + min_to_max) {
> + for (off = 0; off <= min_to_max; off++) {
> + *keyptr = htons(min + off);
> + if (!nf_nat_used_tuple(tuple, ct))
> + return;
> + }
> + }
> + }

I fear this searches waaaay to many ports.
We had softlockups in the past because of exhausive searches.

See a504b703bb1da526a01593da0e4be2af9d9f5fa8
("netfilter: nat: limit port clash resolution attempts").

I suggest you try pre-selecting one of the eligible ranges in
nf_nat_masquerade_ipv4 when the 'newrange' is filled in and set
RANGE_PROTO_SPECIFIED.

Maybe even prandom-based preselection is good enough.

> /* If no range specified... */
> if (!(range->flags & NF_NAT_RANGE_PROTO_SPECIFIED)) {
> /* If it's dst rewrite, can't change port */
> @@ -529,11 +572,19 @@ get_unique_tuple(struct nf_conntrack_tuple *tuple,
>
> /* Only bother mapping if it's not already in range and unique */
> if (!(range->flags & NF_NAT_RANGE_PROTO_RANDOM_ALL)) {
> - if (range->flags & NF_NAT_RANGE_PROTO_SPECIFIED) {
> + /* PSID mode is present always needs to check
> + * to see if the source ports are in range.
> + */
> + if (range->flags & NF_NAT_RANGE_PROTO_SPECIFIED ||
> + (range->flags & NF_NAT_RANGE_PSID &&

Why the extra check?
Can't you set NF_NAT_RANGE_PROTO_SPECIFIED in case PSID is requested by
userspace?

> diff --git a/net/netfilter/nf_nat_ftp.c b/net/netfilter/nf_nat_ftp.c
> index aace6768a64e..f65163278db0 100644
> --- a/net/netfilter/nf_nat_ftp.c
> +++ b/net/netfilter/nf_nat_ftp.c
> @@ -17,6 +17,10 @@
> #include <net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_helper.h>
> #include <net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_expect.h>
> #include <linux/netfilter/nf_conntrack_ftp.h>
> +void nf_nat_l4proto_unique_tuple(struct nf_conntrack_tuple *tuple,
> + const struct nf_nat_range2 *range,
> + enum nf_nat_manip_type maniptype,
> + const struct nf_conn *ct);
>
> #define NAT_HELPER_NAME "ftp"
>
> @@ -72,8 +76,13 @@ static unsigned int nf_nat_ftp(struct sk_buff *skb,
> u_int16_t port;
> int dir = CTINFO2DIR(ctinfo);
> struct nf_conn *ct = exp->master;
> + struct nf_conn_nat *nat = nfct_nat(ct);
> char buffer[sizeof("|1||65535|") + INET6_ADDRSTRLEN];
> unsigned int buflen;
> + int ret;
> +
> + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!nat))
> + return NF_DROP;
>
> pr_debug("type %i, off %u len %u\n", type, matchoff, matchlen);
>
> @@ -86,18 +95,14 @@ static unsigned int nf_nat_ftp(struct sk_buff *skb,
> * this one. */
> exp->expectfn = nf_nat_follow_master;
>
> - /* Try to get same port: if not, try to change it. */
> - for (port = ntohs(exp->saved_proto.tcp.port); port != 0; port++) {
> - int ret;
> -
> - exp->tuple.dst.u.tcp.port = htons(port);
> - ret = nf_ct_expect_related(exp, 0);
> - if (ret == 0)
> - break;
> - else if (ret != -EBUSY) {
> - port = 0;
> - break;
> - }
> + /* Find a port that matches the MASQ rule. */
> + nf_nat_l4proto_unique_tuple(&exp->tuple, nat->range,
> + dir ? NF_NAT_MANIP_SRC : NF_NAT_MANIP_DST,
> + ct);

Hmm, I am ingorant on details here, but is this correct?

This could be an inbound connection, rather than outbound.

> diff --git a/net/netfilter/nf_nat_helper.c b/net/netfilter/nf_nat_helper.c
> index a263505455fc..2d105e4eb8f8 100644
> --- a/net/netfilter/nf_nat_helper.c
> +++ b/net/netfilter/nf_nat_helper.c
> @@ -179,15 +179,23 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(nf_nat_mangle_udp_packet);
> void nf_nat_follow_master(struct nf_conn *ct,
> struct nf_conntrack_expect *exp)
> {
> + struct nf_conn_nat *nat = NULL;
> struct nf_nat_range2 range;
>
> /* This must be a fresh one. */
> BUG_ON(ct->status & IPS_NAT_DONE_MASK);
>
> - /* Change src to where master sends to */
> - range.flags = NF_NAT_RANGE_MAP_IPS;
> - range.min_addr = range.max_addr
> - = ct->master->tuplehash[!exp->dir].tuple.dst.u3;
> + if (exp->master && !exp->dir) {
> + nat = nfct_nat(exp->master);
> + if (nat)
> + range = *nat->range;

Can't you store the psid-relevant parts of the range struct only?
Non-PSID doesn't need the original range, so why do you?

> diff --git a/net/netfilter/nf_nat_masquerade.c b/net/netfilter/nf_nat_masquerade.c
> index 8e8a65d46345..d83cd3d8ad3f 100644
> --- a/net/netfilter/nf_nat_masquerade.c
> +++ b/net/netfilter/nf_nat_masquerade.c
> @@ -45,10 +45,6 @@ nf_nat_masquerade_ipv4(struct sk_buff *skb, unsigned int hooknum,
> return NF_DROP;
> }
>
> - nat = nf_ct_nat_ext_add(ct);
> - if (nat)
> - nat->masq_index = out->ifindex;
> -
> /* Transfer from original range. */
> memset(&newrange.min_addr, 0, sizeof(newrange.min_addr));
> memset(&newrange.max_addr, 0, sizeof(newrange.max_addr));
> @@ -57,6 +53,15 @@ nf_nat_masquerade_ipv4(struct sk_buff *skb, unsigned int hooknum,
> newrange.max_addr.ip = newsrc;
> newrange.min_proto = range->min_proto;
> newrange.max_proto = range->max_proto;
> + newrange.base_proto = range->base_proto;
> +
> + nat = nf_ct_nat_ext_add(ct);
> + if (nat) {
> + nat->masq_index = out->ifindex;
> + if (!nat->range)
> + nat->range = kmalloc(sizeof(*nat->range), 0);
> + memcpy(nat->range, &newrange, sizeof(*nat->range));

kmemdup. Also misses error handling. Should use GFP_ATOMIC.
Where is this free'd again?

It would be good if you could chop this up in smaller chunks.
A selftest would be nice as well (see tools/testing/selftests/netfilter).

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-06-30 16:22    [W:0.107 / U:0.412 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site