| Message ID | CAHmME9q_ExkdWXg6TMRnhwp7KGRQExooiP-jdpXiPqc=s1p4SA@mail.gmail.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | iptables userspace API broken due to added value in nf_inet_hooks | expand |
On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 02:59:47PM +0200, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > Hey Pablo, > > In 60a3815da702fd9e4759945f26cce5c47d3967ad, you added another enum > value to nf_inet_hooks: > > --- a/include/uapi/linux/netfilter.h > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/netfilter.h > @@ -45,6 +45,7 @@ enum nf_inet_hooks { > NF_INET_FORWARD, > NF_INET_LOCAL_OUT, > NF_INET_POST_ROUTING, > + NF_INET_INGRESS, > NF_INET_NUMHOOKS > }; > > That seems fine, but actually it changes the value of > NF_INET_NUMHOOKS, which is used in struct ipt_getinfo: > > /* The argument to IPT_SO_GET_INFO */ > struct ipt_getinfo { > /* Which table: caller fills this in. */ > char name[XT_TABLE_MAXNAMELEN]; > > /* Kernel fills these in. */ > /* Which hook entry points are valid: bitmask */ > unsigned int valid_hooks; > > /* Hook entry points: one per netfilter hook. */ > unsigned int hook_entry[NF_INET_NUMHOOKS]; > > /* Underflow points. */ > unsigned int underflow[NF_INET_NUMHOOKS]; > > /* Number of entries */ > unsigned int num_entries; > > /* Size of entries. */ > unsigned int size; > }; > > This in turn makes that struct bigger, which means this check in > net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_tables.c fails: > > static int get_info(struct net *net, void __user *user, const int *len) > { > char name[XT_TABLE_MAXNAMELEN]; > struct xt_table *t; > int ret; > > if (*len != sizeof(struct ipt_getinfo)) > return -EINVAL; > > This is affecting my CI, which attempts to use an older iptables with > net-next and fails with: > > iptables v1.8.4 (legacy): can't initialize iptables table `filter': > Module is wrong version > Perhaps iptables or your kernel needs to be upgraded. > > Is this kind of breakage okay? If there's an exception carved out for > breaking the iptables API, just let me know, and I'll look into making > adjustments to work around it in my CI. On the other hand, if this > breakage was unintentional, now you know. Oh right, I'll need a new IPT_INET_NUMHOOKS for this. I'll submit a patch, that's for the heads up.
On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 03:01:15PM +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 02:59:47PM +0200, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > > Hey Pablo, > > > > In 60a3815da702fd9e4759945f26cce5c47d3967ad, you added another enum > > value to nf_inet_hooks: > > > > --- a/include/uapi/linux/netfilter.h > > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/netfilter.h > > @@ -45,6 +45,7 @@ enum nf_inet_hooks { > > NF_INET_FORWARD, > > NF_INET_LOCAL_OUT, > > NF_INET_POST_ROUTING, > > + NF_INET_INGRESS, > > NF_INET_NUMHOOKS > > }; > > > > That seems fine, but actually it changes the value of > > NF_INET_NUMHOOKS, which is used in struct ipt_getinfo: > > > > /* The argument to IPT_SO_GET_INFO */ > > struct ipt_getinfo { > > /* Which table: caller fills this in. */ > > char name[XT_TABLE_MAXNAMELEN]; > > > > /* Kernel fills these in. */ > > /* Which hook entry points are valid: bitmask */ > > unsigned int valid_hooks; > > > > /* Hook entry points: one per netfilter hook. */ > > unsigned int hook_entry[NF_INET_NUMHOOKS]; > > > > /* Underflow points. */ > > unsigned int underflow[NF_INET_NUMHOOKS]; > > > > /* Number of entries */ > > unsigned int num_entries; > > > > /* Size of entries. */ > > unsigned int size; > > }; > > > > This in turn makes that struct bigger, which means this check in > > net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_tables.c fails: > > > > static int get_info(struct net *net, void __user *user, const int *len) > > { > > char name[XT_TABLE_MAXNAMELEN]; > > struct xt_table *t; > > int ret; > > > > if (*len != sizeof(struct ipt_getinfo)) > > return -EINVAL; > > > > This is affecting my CI, which attempts to use an older iptables with > > net-next and fails with: > > > > iptables v1.8.4 (legacy): can't initialize iptables table `filter': > > Module is wrong version > > Perhaps iptables or your kernel needs to be upgraded. > > > > Is this kind of breakage okay? If there's an exception carved out for > > breaking the iptables API, just let me know, and I'll look into making > > adjustments to work around it in my CI. On the other hand, if this > > breakage was unintentional, now you know. > > Oh right, I'll need a new IPT_INET_NUMHOOKS for this. > > I'll submit a patch, that's for the heads up. s/that's/thanks
--- a/include/uapi/linux/netfilter.h +++ b/include/uapi/linux/netfilter.h @@ -45,6 +45,7 @@ enum nf_inet_hooks { NF_INET_FORWARD, NF_INET_LOCAL_OUT, NF_INET_POST_ROUTING, + NF_INET_INGRESS, NF_INET_NUMHOOKS };
Hey Pablo, In 60a3815da702fd9e4759945f26cce5c47d3967ad, you added another enum value to nf_inet_hooks: That seems fine, but actually it changes the value of NF_INET_NUMHOOKS, which is used in struct ipt_getinfo: /* The argument to IPT_SO_GET_INFO */ struct ipt_getinfo { /* Which table: caller fills this in. */ char name[XT_TABLE_MAXNAMELEN]; /* Kernel fills these in. */ /* Which hook entry points are valid: bitmask */ unsigned int valid_hooks; /* Hook entry points: one per netfilter hook. */ unsigned int hook_entry[NF_INET_NUMHOOKS]; /* Underflow points. */ unsigned int underflow[NF_INET_NUMHOOKS]; /* Number of entries */ unsigned int num_entries; /* Size of entries. */ unsigned int size; }; This in turn makes that struct bigger, which means this check in net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_tables.c fails: static int get_info(struct net *net, void __user *user, const int *len) { char name[XT_TABLE_MAXNAMELEN]; struct xt_table *t; int ret; if (*len != sizeof(struct ipt_getinfo)) return -EINVAL; This is affecting my CI, which attempts to use an older iptables with net-next and fails with: iptables v1.8.4 (legacy): can't initialize iptables table `filter': Module is wrong version Perhaps iptables or your kernel needs to be upgraded. Is this kind of breakage okay? If there's an exception carved out for breaking the iptables API, just let me know, and I'll look into making adjustments to work around it in my CI. On the other hand, if this breakage was unintentional, now you know. Jason