netdev.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [PATCH nf] conntrack: RFC5961 challenge ACK confuse conntrack LAST-ACK transition
@ 2015-05-07 12:54 Jesper Dangaard Brouer
  2015-05-11 10:02 ` Jozsef Kadlecsik
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Jesper Dangaard Brouer @ 2015-05-07 12:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Pablo Neira Ayuso, Jozsef Kadlecsik
  Cc: Jesper Dangaard Brouer, netdev, netfilter-devel

In compliance with RFC5961, the network stack send challenge ACK in
response to spurious SYN packets, since commit 0c228e833c88 ("tcp:
Restore RFC5961-compliant behavior for SYN packets").

This pose a problem for netfilter conntrack in state LAST_ACK, because
this challenge ACK is (falsely) seen as ACKing last FIN, causing a
false state transition (into TIME_WAIT).

The challenge ACK is hard to distinguish from real last ACK.  Thus,
solution introduce a flag that tracks the potential for seeing a
challenge ACK, in case a SYN packet is let through and current state
is LAST_ACK.

When conntrack transition LAST_ACK to TIME_WAIT happens, this flag is
used for determining if we are expecting a challenge ACK.

Scapy based reproducer script avail here:
 https://github.com/netoptimizer/network-testing/blob/master/scapy/tcp_hacks_3WHS_LAST_ACK.py

Fixes: 0c228e833c88 ("tcp: Restore RFC5961-compliant behavior for SYN packets")
Signed-off-by: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@redhat.com>
---

 include/uapi/linux/netfilter/nf_conntrack_tcp.h |    3 ++
 net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_proto_tcp.c          |   35 +++++++++++++++++++++--
 2 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/netfilter/nf_conntrack_tcp.h b/include/uapi/linux/netfilter/nf_conntrack_tcp.h
index 9993a42..ef9f80f 100644
--- a/include/uapi/linux/netfilter/nf_conntrack_tcp.h
+++ b/include/uapi/linux/netfilter/nf_conntrack_tcp.h
@@ -42,6 +42,9 @@ enum tcp_conntrack {
 /* The field td_maxack has been set */
 #define IP_CT_TCP_FLAG_MAXACK_SET		0x20
 
+/* Marks possibility for expected RFC5961 challenge ACK */
+#define IP_CT_EXP_CHALLENGE_ACK 		0x40
+
 struct nf_ct_tcp_flags {
 	__u8 flags;
 	__u8 mask;
diff --git a/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_proto_tcp.c b/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_proto_tcp.c
index 5caa0c4..ad0db66 100644
--- a/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_proto_tcp.c
+++ b/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_proto_tcp.c
@@ -202,7 +202,7 @@ static const u8 tcp_conntracks[2][6][TCP_CONNTRACK_MAX] = {
  *	sES -> sES	:-)
  *	sFW -> sCW	Normal close request answered by ACK.
  *	sCW -> sCW
- *	sLA -> sTW	Last ACK detected.
+ *	sLA -> sTW	Last ACK detected (RFC5961 challenged)
  *	sTW -> sTW	Retransmitted last ACK. Remain in the same state.
  *	sCL -> sCL
  */
@@ -261,7 +261,7 @@ static const u8 tcp_conntracks[2][6][TCP_CONNTRACK_MAX] = {
  *	sES -> sES	:-)
  *	sFW -> sCW	Normal close request answered by ACK.
  *	sCW -> sCW
- *	sLA -> sTW	Last ACK detected.
+ *	sLA -> sTW	Last ACK detected (RFC5961 challenged)
  *	sTW -> sTW	Retransmitted last ACK.
  *	sCL -> sCL
  */
@@ -906,6 +906,7 @@ static int tcp_packet(struct nf_conn *ct,
 					1 : ct->proto.tcp.last_win;
 			ct->proto.tcp.seen[ct->proto.tcp.last_dir].td_scale =
 				ct->proto.tcp.last_wscale;
+			ct->proto.tcp.last_flags &= ~IP_CT_EXP_CHALLENGE_ACK;
 			ct->proto.tcp.seen[ct->proto.tcp.last_dir].flags =
 				ct->proto.tcp.last_flags;
 			memset(&ct->proto.tcp.seen[dir], 0,
@@ -923,7 +924,9 @@ static int tcp_packet(struct nf_conn *ct,
 		 * may be in sync but we are not. In that case, we annotate
 		 * the TCP options and let the packet go through. If it is a
 		 * valid SYN packet, the server will reply with a SYN/ACK, and
-		 * then we'll get in sync. Otherwise, the server ignores it. */
+		 * then we'll get in sync. Otherwise, the server potentially
+		 * respons with a challenge ACK if implementing RFC5961.
+		 */
 		if (index == TCP_SYN_SET && dir == IP_CT_DIR_ORIGINAL) {
 			struct ip_ct_tcp_state seen = {};
 
@@ -939,6 +942,13 @@ static int tcp_packet(struct nf_conn *ct,
 				ct->proto.tcp.last_flags |=
 					IP_CT_TCP_FLAG_SACK_PERM;
 			}
+			/* Mark the potential for RFC5961 challenge ACK,
+			 * this pose a special problem for LAST_ACK state
+			 * as ACK is intrepretated as ACKing last FIN.
+			 */
+			if (old_state == TCP_CONNTRACK_LAST_ACK)
+				ct->proto.tcp.last_flags |=
+					IP_CT_EXP_CHALLENGE_ACK;
 		}
 		spin_unlock_bh(&ct->lock);
 		if (LOG_INVALID(net, IPPROTO_TCP))
@@ -970,6 +980,25 @@ static int tcp_packet(struct nf_conn *ct,
 			nf_log_packet(net, pf, 0, skb, NULL, NULL, NULL,
 				  "nf_ct_tcp: invalid state ");
 		return -NF_ACCEPT;
+	case TCP_CONNTRACK_TIME_WAIT:
+		/* RFC5961 compliance cause stack to send "challenge-ACK"
+		 * e.g. in response to spurious SYNs.  Conntrack MUST
+		 * not believe this ACK is acking last FIN.
+		 */
+		if (old_state == TCP_CONNTRACK_LAST_ACK
+		    && index == TCP_ACK_SET
+		    && ct->proto.tcp.last_dir != dir
+		    && ct->proto.tcp.last_index == TCP_SYN_SET
+		    && (ct->proto.tcp.last_flags & IP_CT_EXP_CHALLENGE_ACK)) {
+			/* Detected RFC5961 challenge ACK */
+			ct->proto.tcp.last_flags &= ~IP_CT_EXP_CHALLENGE_ACK;
+			spin_unlock_bh(&ct->lock);
+			if (LOG_INVALID(net, IPPROTO_TCP))
+				nf_log_packet(net, pf, 0, skb, NULL, NULL, NULL,
+				      "nf_ct_tcp: challenge-ACK ignored ");
+			return NF_ACCEPT; /* Don't change state */
+		}
+		break;
 	case TCP_CONNTRACK_CLOSE:
 		if (index == TCP_RST_SET
 		    && (ct->proto.tcp.seen[!dir].flags & IP_CT_TCP_FLAG_MAXACK_SET)

^ permalink raw reply related	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH nf] conntrack: RFC5961 challenge ACK confuse conntrack LAST-ACK transition
  2015-05-07 12:54 [PATCH nf] conntrack: RFC5961 challenge ACK confuse conntrack LAST-ACK transition Jesper Dangaard Brouer
@ 2015-05-11 10:02 ` Jozsef Kadlecsik
  2015-05-15 19:06   ` Pablo Neira Ayuso
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Jozsef Kadlecsik @ 2015-05-11 10:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jesper Dangaard Brouer; +Cc: Pablo Neira Ayuso, netdev, netfilter-devel

Hi,

On Thu, 7 May 2015, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:

> In compliance with RFC5961, the network stack send challenge ACK in
> response to spurious SYN packets, since commit 0c228e833c88 ("tcp:
> Restore RFC5961-compliant behavior for SYN packets").
> 
> This pose a problem for netfilter conntrack in state LAST_ACK, because
> this challenge ACK is (falsely) seen as ACKing last FIN, causing a
> false state transition (into TIME_WAIT).
> 
> The challenge ACK is hard to distinguish from real last ACK.  Thus,
> solution introduce a flag that tracks the potential for seeing a
> challenge ACK, in case a SYN packet is let through and current state
> is LAST_ACK.
> 
> When conntrack transition LAST_ACK to TIME_WAIT happens, this flag is
> used for determining if we are expecting a challenge ACK.
> 
> Scapy based reproducer script avail here:
>  https://github.com/netoptimizer/network-testing/blob/master/scapy/tcp_hacks_3WHS_LAST_ACK.py
> 
> Fixes: 0c228e833c88 ("tcp: Restore RFC5961-compliant behavior for SYN packets")
> Signed-off-by: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@redhat.com>

The patch looks OK to me, thanks Jesper.

Acked-by: Jozsef Kadlecsik <kadlec@blackhole.kfki.hu>

Best regards,
Jozsef
> ---
> 
>  include/uapi/linux/netfilter/nf_conntrack_tcp.h |    3 ++
>  net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_proto_tcp.c          |   35 +++++++++++++++++++++--
>  2 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/netfilter/nf_conntrack_tcp.h b/include/uapi/linux/netfilter/nf_conntrack_tcp.h
> index 9993a42..ef9f80f 100644
> --- a/include/uapi/linux/netfilter/nf_conntrack_tcp.h
> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/netfilter/nf_conntrack_tcp.h
> @@ -42,6 +42,9 @@ enum tcp_conntrack {
>  /* The field td_maxack has been set */
>  #define IP_CT_TCP_FLAG_MAXACK_SET		0x20
>  
> +/* Marks possibility for expected RFC5961 challenge ACK */
> +#define IP_CT_EXP_CHALLENGE_ACK 		0x40
> +
>  struct nf_ct_tcp_flags {
>  	__u8 flags;
>  	__u8 mask;
> diff --git a/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_proto_tcp.c b/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_proto_tcp.c
> index 5caa0c4..ad0db66 100644
> --- a/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_proto_tcp.c
> +++ b/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_proto_tcp.c
> @@ -202,7 +202,7 @@ static const u8 tcp_conntracks[2][6][TCP_CONNTRACK_MAX] = {
>   *	sES -> sES	:-)
>   *	sFW -> sCW	Normal close request answered by ACK.
>   *	sCW -> sCW
> - *	sLA -> sTW	Last ACK detected.
> + *	sLA -> sTW	Last ACK detected (RFC5961 challenged)
>   *	sTW -> sTW	Retransmitted last ACK. Remain in the same state.
>   *	sCL -> sCL
>   */
> @@ -261,7 +261,7 @@ static const u8 tcp_conntracks[2][6][TCP_CONNTRACK_MAX] = {
>   *	sES -> sES	:-)
>   *	sFW -> sCW	Normal close request answered by ACK.
>   *	sCW -> sCW
> - *	sLA -> sTW	Last ACK detected.
> + *	sLA -> sTW	Last ACK detected (RFC5961 challenged)
>   *	sTW -> sTW	Retransmitted last ACK.
>   *	sCL -> sCL
>   */
> @@ -906,6 +906,7 @@ static int tcp_packet(struct nf_conn *ct,
>  					1 : ct->proto.tcp.last_win;
>  			ct->proto.tcp.seen[ct->proto.tcp.last_dir].td_scale =
>  				ct->proto.tcp.last_wscale;
> +			ct->proto.tcp.last_flags &= ~IP_CT_EXP_CHALLENGE_ACK;
>  			ct->proto.tcp.seen[ct->proto.tcp.last_dir].flags =
>  				ct->proto.tcp.last_flags;
>  			memset(&ct->proto.tcp.seen[dir], 0,
> @@ -923,7 +924,9 @@ static int tcp_packet(struct nf_conn *ct,
>  		 * may be in sync but we are not. In that case, we annotate
>  		 * the TCP options and let the packet go through. If it is a
>  		 * valid SYN packet, the server will reply with a SYN/ACK, and
> -		 * then we'll get in sync. Otherwise, the server ignores it. */
> +		 * then we'll get in sync. Otherwise, the server potentially
> +		 * respons with a challenge ACK if implementing RFC5961.
> +		 */
>  		if (index == TCP_SYN_SET && dir == IP_CT_DIR_ORIGINAL) {
>  			struct ip_ct_tcp_state seen = {};
>  
> @@ -939,6 +942,13 @@ static int tcp_packet(struct nf_conn *ct,
>  				ct->proto.tcp.last_flags |=
>  					IP_CT_TCP_FLAG_SACK_PERM;
>  			}
> +			/* Mark the potential for RFC5961 challenge ACK,
> +			 * this pose a special problem for LAST_ACK state
> +			 * as ACK is intrepretated as ACKing last FIN.
> +			 */
> +			if (old_state == TCP_CONNTRACK_LAST_ACK)
> +				ct->proto.tcp.last_flags |=
> +					IP_CT_EXP_CHALLENGE_ACK;
>  		}
>  		spin_unlock_bh(&ct->lock);
>  		if (LOG_INVALID(net, IPPROTO_TCP))
> @@ -970,6 +980,25 @@ static int tcp_packet(struct nf_conn *ct,
>  			nf_log_packet(net, pf, 0, skb, NULL, NULL, NULL,
>  				  "nf_ct_tcp: invalid state ");
>  		return -NF_ACCEPT;
> +	case TCP_CONNTRACK_TIME_WAIT:
> +		/* RFC5961 compliance cause stack to send "challenge-ACK"
> +		 * e.g. in response to spurious SYNs.  Conntrack MUST
> +		 * not believe this ACK is acking last FIN.
> +		 */
> +		if (old_state == TCP_CONNTRACK_LAST_ACK
> +		    && index == TCP_ACK_SET
> +		    && ct->proto.tcp.last_dir != dir
> +		    && ct->proto.tcp.last_index == TCP_SYN_SET
> +		    && (ct->proto.tcp.last_flags & IP_CT_EXP_CHALLENGE_ACK)) {
> +			/* Detected RFC5961 challenge ACK */
> +			ct->proto.tcp.last_flags &= ~IP_CT_EXP_CHALLENGE_ACK;
> +			spin_unlock_bh(&ct->lock);
> +			if (LOG_INVALID(net, IPPROTO_TCP))
> +				nf_log_packet(net, pf, 0, skb, NULL, NULL, NULL,
> +				      "nf_ct_tcp: challenge-ACK ignored ");
> +			return NF_ACCEPT; /* Don't change state */
> +		}
> +		break;
>  	case TCP_CONNTRACK_CLOSE:
>  		if (index == TCP_RST_SET
>  		    && (ct->proto.tcp.seen[!dir].flags & IP_CT_TCP_FLAG_MAXACK_SET)
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 

-
E-mail  : kadlec@blackhole.kfki.hu, kadlecsik.jozsef@wigner.mta.hu
PGP key : http://www.kfki.hu/~kadlec/pgp_public_key.txt
Address : Wigner Research Centre for Physics, Hungarian Academy of Sciences
          H-1525 Budapest 114, POB. 49, Hungary

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH nf] conntrack: RFC5961 challenge ACK confuse conntrack LAST-ACK transition
  2015-05-11 10:02 ` Jozsef Kadlecsik
@ 2015-05-15 19:06   ` Pablo Neira Ayuso
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Pablo Neira Ayuso @ 2015-05-15 19:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jozsef Kadlecsik; +Cc: Jesper Dangaard Brouer, netdev, netfilter-devel

On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 12:02:17PM +0200, Jozsef Kadlecsik wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, 7 May 2015, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> 
> > In compliance with RFC5961, the network stack send challenge ACK in
> > response to spurious SYN packets, since commit 0c228e833c88 ("tcp:
> > Restore RFC5961-compliant behavior for SYN packets").
> > 
> > This pose a problem for netfilter conntrack in state LAST_ACK, because
> > this challenge ACK is (falsely) seen as ACKing last FIN, causing a
> > false state transition (into TIME_WAIT).
> > 
> > The challenge ACK is hard to distinguish from real last ACK.  Thus,
> > solution introduce a flag that tracks the potential for seeing a
> > challenge ACK, in case a SYN packet is let through and current state
> > is LAST_ACK.
> > 
> > When conntrack transition LAST_ACK to TIME_WAIT happens, this flag is
> > used for determining if we are expecting a challenge ACK.
> > 
> > Scapy based reproducer script avail here:
> >  https://github.com/netoptimizer/network-testing/blob/master/scapy/tcp_hacks_3WHS_LAST_ACK.py
> > 
> > Fixes: 0c228e833c88 ("tcp: Restore RFC5961-compliant behavior for SYN packets")
> > Signed-off-by: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@redhat.com>
> 
> The patch looks OK to me, thanks Jesper.
> 
> Acked-by: Jozsef Kadlecsik <kadlec@blackhole.kfki.hu>

Applied, thanks.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2015-05-15 19:01 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2015-05-07 12:54 [PATCH nf] conntrack: RFC5961 challenge ACK confuse conntrack LAST-ACK transition Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2015-05-11 10:02 ` Jozsef Kadlecsik
2015-05-15 19:06   ` Pablo Neira Ayuso

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 NNTP newsgroup(s).