Re: [PATCH nf v2 1/1] netfilter: validate L4 headers after userspace packet writes
Florian Westphal <[email protected]> Thu, 30 Jul 2026 13:06:27 +0200
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.network,gmane.comp.security.firewalls.netfilter.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Pablo Neira Ayuso <[email protected]> wrote: > > + const struct nf_conn *ct; > > + > > + ct =3D nf_ct_get(e->skb, &ctinfo); > > + if (ct && !nf_ct_is_template(ct) && nf_ct_protonum(ct) !=3D proto) >=20 > I think it should be easier to disallow protocol number mangling in > the IP header (layer 3 restrictions), if not done already. How? nfqueue is whole-replace, not a delta. Or do you mean checking ip_hdr(skb) vs. the protocol field in userspace provided buffer? I would prefer this solution (i.e. check ct protocol), it still allows theo= retical nfqueue based tunneling header insertion, if done in prerouting before conntrack. > > + switch (proto) { > > + case IPPROTO_TCP: { > > + const struct tcphdr *th =3D (const struct tcphdr *)data; >=20 > This needs to use skb_header_pointer() here, you cannot assume the tcp > header is in a linear area. data is a linear buffer coming from userspace (nla_data(nfqa[NFQA_PAYLOAD]). > > + case IPPROTO_SCTP: > > + return data_len >=3D sizeof(struct sctphdr); > > + case IPPROTO_GRE: > > + return data_len >=3D sizeof(struct gre_base_hdr); > > + case IPPROTO_NONE: >=20 > Remove this and make it part of default and return true if protocol is > unknown. Hmm. Its likely safe to accept unknown headers, here. Perhaps next iteration should indeed do what you suggest but also check check ESP and AH. > Default is false for an unknown protocol, should be true. I suggested it this way, i.e. don't permit unknown l4 protocols, but maybe its too restrictive. > > + if (pkt->tprot !=3D IPPROTO_TCP) > > + return true; > > + > > + return priv->offset > doff || priv->offset + priv->len <=3D doff; > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >=20 > maybe simply check priv->offset >=3D doff here? Could you elaborate? The above LGTM. priv->offset > doff is already tested? I mean, write is ok either if offset exceeds doff (lhs) or if offset + length doesn't touch doff area (rhs). Did you mean "just reject everything exceeding doff"? Patch LGTM, except perhaps switching to "allow unknowns" in nfqueue.