All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org>
To: Phil Sutter <phil@nwl.cc>, netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, fw@strlen.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH] netfilter: nf_tables: restrict expression reduction to first expression
Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 14:33:04 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YoTngK20lMg53JOy@salvia> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YoTk5VKX98itwUQo@salvia>

On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 02:21:59PM +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 01:40:21PM +0200, Phil Sutter wrote:
> > On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 01:01:50PM +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 12:51:00PM +0200, Phil Sutter wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > > 
> > > > On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 12:08:42PM +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> > > > > Either userspace or kernelspace need to pre-fetch keys inconditionally
> > > > > before comparisons for this to work. Otherwise, register tracking data
> > > > > is misleading and it might result in reducing expressions which are not
> > > > > yet registers.
> > > > > 
> > > > > First expression is guaranteed to be evaluated always, therefore, keep
> > > > > tracking registers and restrict reduction to first expression.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Fixes: b2d306542ff9 ("netfilter: nf_tables: do not reduce read-only expressions")
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > @Phil, you mentioned about a way to simplify this patch, I don't see how,
> > > > > just let me know.
> > > > 
> > > > Not a big one. Instead of:
> > > > 
> > > > |	if (nft_expr_reduce(&track, expr)) {
> > > > |		if (reduce) {
> > > > |			reduce = false;
> > > > |			expr = track.cur;
> > > > |			continue;
> > > > |		}
> > > > |	} else if (reduce) {
> > > > |		reduce = false;
> > > > |	}
> > > > 
> > > > One could do:
> > > > 
> > > > |	if (nft_expr_reduce(&track, expr) && reduce) {
> > > > |		reduce = false;
> > > > |		expr = track.cur;
> > > > |		continue;
> > > > |	}
> > > > |	reduce = false;
> > > 
> > > I'll send v2 using this idiom.
> > > 
> > > > Regarding later pre-fetching, one should distinguish between expressions
> > > > that (may) set verdict register and those that don't. There are pitfalls
> > > > though, e.g. error conditions handled that way.
> > > > 
> > > > Maybe introduce a new nft_expr_type field and set reduce like so:
> > > > 
> > > > | reduce = reduce && expr->ops->type->reduce;
> > > 
> > > Could you elaborate?
> > 
> > Well, an expression which may set verdict register to NFT_BREAK should
> > prevent reduction of later expressions in same rule as it may stop rule
> > evaluation at run-time. This is obvious for nft_cmp, but nft_meta is
> > also a candidate: NFT_META_IFTYPE causes NFT_BREAK if pkt->skb->dev is
> > NULL. The optimizer must not assume later expressions are evaluated.
> 
> How many other expression are breaking when fetching the key?
> 
> > A first step might be said nft_expr_type field indicating a given
> > expression might stop expression evaluation. Therefore:
> > 
> > | reduce = reduce && expr->ops->type->reduce;
> > 
> > would continue expression reduction if not already stopped and the
> > current expression doesn't end it.
> > 
> > Taking nft_meta as example again:
> > 
> > * Behaviour changes based on nft_expr_type::select_ops result
> > * Some keys are guaranteed to not stop expression evaluation:
> >   NFT_META_LEN for instance will always just fetch skb->len. So
> >   introduce a callback instead:
> >
> > | bool nft_expr_ops::may_break(const struct nft_expr *expr);
> >
> > Then "ask" the expression whether it may change verdict register:
> > 
> > | reduce = reduce && expr->ops->may_break(expr);
> > 
> > With nft_meta_get_ops, we'd have:
> > 
> > | bool nft_meta_get_may_break(const struct nft_expr *expr)
> > | {
> > | 	switch (nft_expr_priv(expr)->key) {
> > | 	case NFT_META_LEN:
> > | 	case NFT_META_PROTOCOL::
> > | 	[...]
> > | 		return false;
> > | 	case NFT_META_IFTYPE:
> > | 	[...]
> > | 		return true;
> > | 	}
> > | }
> 
> And simply remove that NFT_BREAK and set a value that will not ever
> match via nft_cmp?

Canceling tracking of keys that might break is probably a more simple
solution.

  reply	other threads:[~2022-05-18 12:47 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-05-18 10:08 [PATCH] netfilter: nf_tables: restrict expression reduction to first expression Pablo Neira Ayuso
2022-05-18 10:51 ` Phil Sutter
2022-05-18 11:01   ` Pablo Neira Ayuso
2022-05-18 11:40     ` Phil Sutter
2022-05-18 11:48       ` Florian Westphal
2022-05-18 12:26         ` Pablo Neira Ayuso
2022-05-18 12:38           ` Florian Westphal
2022-05-18 12:49             ` Pablo Neira Ayuso
2022-05-18 12:21       ` Pablo Neira Ayuso
2022-05-18 12:33         ` Pablo Neira Ayuso [this message]
2022-05-18 12:43         ` Phil Sutter

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=YoTngK20lMg53JOy@salvia \
    --to=pablo@netfilter.org \
    --cc=fw@strlen.de \
    --cc=netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=phil@nwl.cc \
    /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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.