From: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, razor@blackwall.org,
bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org,
Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>,
kadlec@netfilter.org, edumazet@google.com,
coreteam@netfilter.org, netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org,
roopa@nvidia.com, kuba@kernel.org,
Radim Hrazdil <rhrazdil@redhat.com>,
pabeni@redhat.com, davem@davemloft.net,
Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org>
Subject: [Bridge] [PATCH AUTOSEL 5.18 09/22] netfilter: br_netfilter: do not skip all hooks with 0 priority
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2022 11:30:27 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220706153041.1597639-9-sashal@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220706153041.1597639-1-sashal@kernel.org>
From: Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>
[ Upstream commit c2577862eeb0be94f151f2f1fff662b028061b00 ]
When br_netfilter module is loaded, skbs may be diverted to the
ipv4/ipv6 hooks, just like as if we were routing.
Unfortunately, bridge filter hooks with priority 0 may be skipped
in this case.
Example:
1. an nftables bridge ruleset is loaded, with a prerouting
hook that has priority 0.
2. interface is added to the bridge.
3. no tcp packet is ever seen by the bridge prerouting hook.
4. flush the ruleset
5. load the bridge ruleset again.
6. tcp packets are processed as expected.
After 1) the only registered hook is the bridge prerouting hook, but its
not called yet because the bridge hasn't been brought up yet.
After 2), hook order is:
0 br_nf_pre_routing // br_netfilter internal hook
0 chain bridge f prerouting // nftables bridge ruleset
The packet is diverted to br_nf_pre_routing.
If call-iptables is off, the nftables bridge ruleset is called as expected.
But if its enabled, br_nf_hook_thresh() will skip it because it assumes
that all 0-priority hooks had been called previously in bridge context.
To avoid this, check for the br_nf_pre_routing hook itself, we need to
resume directly after it, even if this hook has a priority of 0.
Unfortunately, this still results in different packet flow.
With this fix, the eval order after in 3) is:
1. br_nf_pre_routing
2. ip(6)tables (if enabled)
3. nftables bridge
but after 5 its the much saner:
1. nftables bridge
2. br_nf_pre_routing
3. ip(6)tables (if enabled)
Unfortunately I don't see a solution here:
It would be possible to move br_nf_pre_routing to a higher priority
so that it will be called later in the pipeline, but this also impacts
ebtables evaluation order, and would still result in this very ordering
problem for all nftables-bridge hooks with the same priority as the
br_nf_pre_routing one.
Searching back through the git history I don't think this has
ever behaved in any other way, hence, no fixes-tag.
Reported-by: Radim Hrazdil <rhrazdil@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>
Signed-off-by: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
---
net/bridge/br_netfilter_hooks.c | 21 ++++++++++++++++++---
1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/bridge/br_netfilter_hooks.c b/net/bridge/br_netfilter_hooks.c
index 4fd882686b04..ff4779036649 100644
--- a/net/bridge/br_netfilter_hooks.c
+++ b/net/bridge/br_netfilter_hooks.c
@@ -1012,9 +1012,24 @@ int br_nf_hook_thresh(unsigned int hook, struct net *net,
return okfn(net, sk, skb);
ops = nf_hook_entries_get_hook_ops(e);
- for (i = 0; i < e->num_hook_entries &&
- ops[i]->priority <= NF_BR_PRI_BRNF; i++)
- ;
+ for (i = 0; i < e->num_hook_entries; i++) {
+ /* These hooks have already been called */
+ if (ops[i]->priority < NF_BR_PRI_BRNF)
+ continue;
+
+ /* These hooks have not been called yet, run them. */
+ if (ops[i]->priority > NF_BR_PRI_BRNF)
+ break;
+
+ /* take a closer look at NF_BR_PRI_BRNF. */
+ if (ops[i]->hook == br_nf_pre_routing) {
+ /* This hook diverted the skb to this function,
+ * hooks after this have not been run yet.
+ */
+ i++;
+ break;
+ }
+ }
nf_hook_state_init(&state, hook, NFPROTO_BRIDGE, indev, outdev,
sk, net, okfn);
--
2.35.1
parent reply other threads:[~2022-07-06 15:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
[parent not found: <20220706153041.1597639-1-sashal@kernel.org>]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20220706153041.1597639-9-sashal@kernel.org \
--to=sashal@kernel.org \
--cc=bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=coreteam@netfilter.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=fw@strlen.de \
--cc=kadlec@netfilter.org \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=pablo@netfilter.org \
--cc=razor@blackwall.org \
--cc=rhrazdil@redhat.com \
--cc=roopa@nvidia.com \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).