Eric Dumazet <eric.duma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-11-28 at 22:34 +0100, Florian Westphal wrote:
> > Eric Dumazet <eric.duma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Might be a bug added in commit daaa7d647f81f3
> > > > ("netfilter: ipv6: avoid nf_iterate recursion")
> > > >
> > > > Florian, what do you think of dropping a packet that presumably was
> > > > mangled badly by nf_ct_frag6_queue() ?
> >
> > ipv4 definitely frees malformed packets.
> > In general, I think netfilter should avoid 'silent' drops if possible
> > and let skb continue, but of course such skbs should not be made worse
> > as what we ate to begin with...
> >
> > > > (Like about 48 byte pulled :(, and/or skb->csum changed )
> >
> > I think this warrants a review of ipv6 reassembly too, bug reported here
> > is because ipv6 nf defrag is also done on output.
>
>
> ip6_frag_queue() definitely frees bad/mangled skbs()
Yes, sorry. nf_ct_frag6_queue is mostly derived from ip6_frag_queue
so any bugs in one might also exist in other.
Thats all I wanted to say here. I'll check this tomorrow.
> > Looks good, we'll need to change some of the errno return codes in
> > nf_ct_frag6_gather to 0 though for this to work, which should not be too
> > hard ;)
>
> If the goal is to let buggy packets pass, then we might need to undo
> changes in nf_ct_frag6_queue()
It currently returns -EINVAL in cases where skb wasn't changed/altered
(e.g. because it doesn't have a fragment header), so we should ACCEPT in
that case.
As for 'buggy' packet, I think its ok to mimic ip6_frag_queue, i.e.
if it tosses returning NF_DROP under same circumstance seems ok.
(Passing however will -- on ingress side -- cause snmp stat increments
in ipv6 reassembly, this still might be desireable).
I'll check where undo might be possible/not too hard.
Thanks Eric for debugging this!
