[PATCH 2.6.21-stable] [IPV6]: Restore semantics of Routing Header processing.

[PATCH 2.6.21-stable] [IPV6]: Restore semantics of Routing Header processing.

[YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明]

The "fix" for emerging security threats was overkill and it broke
basic semantic of IPv6 routing header processing.  We should assume
RT0 (or even RT2, depends on configuration) as "unknown" RH type so
that we
- silently ignore the routing header if segleft == 0
- or, send ICMPv6 Parameter Problem message back to the sender,
  otherwise.

Signed-off-by: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki <yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org>
---
 net/ipv6/exthdrs.c |   46 ++++++++++++++++------------------------------
 1 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/ipv6/exthdrs.c b/net/ipv6/exthdrs.c
index 3205ec9..6386dd7 100644
--- a/net/ipv6/exthdrs.c
+++ b/net/ipv6/exthdrs.c
@@ -368,22 +368,13 @@ static int ipv6_rthdr_rcv(struct sk_buff **skbp)
 	struct rt0_hdr *rthdr;
 	int accept_source_route = ipv6_devconf.accept_source_route;
 
-	if (accept_source_route < 0 ||
-	    ((idev = in6_dev_get(skb->dev)) == NULL)) {
-		kfree_skb(skb);
-		return -1;
-	}
-	if (idev->cnf.accept_source_route < 0) {
+	idev = in6_dev_get(skb->dev);
+	if (idev) {
+		if (accept_source_route > idev->cnf.accept_source_route)
+			accept_source_route = idev->cnf.accept_source_route;
 		in6_dev_put(idev);
-		kfree_skb(skb);
-		return -1;
 	}
 
-	if (accept_source_route > idev->cnf.accept_source_route)
-		accept_source_route = idev->cnf.accept_source_route;
-
-	in6_dev_put(idev);
-
 	if (!pskb_may_pull(skb, (skb->h.raw-skb->data)+8) ||
 	    !pskb_may_pull(skb, (skb->h.raw-skb->data)+((skb->h.raw[1]+1)<<3))) {
 		IP6_INC_STATS_BH(ip6_dst_idev(skb->dst),
@@ -394,23 +385,6 @@ static int ipv6_rthdr_rcv(struct sk_buff **skbp)
 
 	hdr = (struct ipv6_rt_hdr *) skb->h.raw;
 
-	switch (hdr->type) {
-#ifdef CONFIG_IPV6_MIP6
-	case IPV6_SRCRT_TYPE_2:
-		break;
-#endif
-	case IPV6_SRCRT_TYPE_0:
-		if (accept_source_route > 0)
-			break;
-		kfree_skb(skb);
-		return -1;
-	default:
-		IP6_INC_STATS_BH(ip6_dst_idev(skb->dst),
-				 IPSTATS_MIB_INHDRERRORS);
-		icmpv6_param_prob(skb, ICMPV6_HDR_FIELD, (&hdr->type) - skb->nh.raw);
-		return -1;
-	}
-
 	if (ipv6_addr_is_multicast(&skb->nh.ipv6h->daddr) ||
 	    skb->pkt_type != PACKET_HOST) {
 		IP6_INC_STATS_BH(ip6_dst_idev(skb->dst),
@@ -450,6 +424,8 @@ looped_back:
 
 	switch (hdr->type) {
 	case IPV6_SRCRT_TYPE_0:
+		if (accept_source_route <= 0)
+			goto unknown_rh;
 		if (hdr->hdrlen & 0x01) {
 			IP6_INC_STATS_BH(ip6_dst_idev(skb->dst),
 					 IPSTATS_MIB_INHDRERRORS);
@@ -459,6 +435,8 @@ looped_back:
 		break;
 #ifdef CONFIG_IPV6_MIP6
 	case IPV6_SRCRT_TYPE_2:
+		if (accept_source_route < 0)
+			goto unknown_rh;
 		/* Silently discard invalid RTH type 2 */
 		if (hdr->hdrlen != 2 || hdr->segments_left != 1) {
 			IP6_INC_STATS_BH(ip6_dst_idev(skb->dst),
@@ -468,6 +446,8 @@ looped_back:
 		}
 		break;
 #endif
+	default:
+		goto unknown_rh;
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -569,6 +549,12 @@ looped_back:
 	skb_push(skb, skb->data - skb->nh.raw);
 	dst_input(skb);
 	return -1;
+
+unknown_rh:
+	IP6_INC_STATS_BH(ip6_dst_idev(skb->dst), IPSTATS_MIB_INHDRERRORS);
+	icmpv6_param_prob(skb, ICMPV6_HDR_FIELD,
+			  (&hdr->type) - skb->nh.raw);
+	return -1;
 }
 
 static struct inet6_protocol rthdr_protocol = {
-- 
1.5.1

-- 
YOSHIFUJI Hideaki @ USAGI Project  <yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org>
GPG-FP  : 9022 65EB 1ECF 3AD1 0BDF  80D8 4807 F894 E062 0EEA

Re: [stable] [PATCH 2.6.21-stable] [IPV6]: Restore semantics of Routing Header processing.

[Chris Wright]

* YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 (yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org) wrote:
> The "fix" for emerging security threats was overkill and it broke
> basic semantic of IPv6 routing header processing.  We should assume
> RT0 (or even RT2, depends on configuration) as "unknown" RH type so
> that we
> - silently ignore the routing header if segleft == 0
> - or, send ICMPv6 Parameter Problem message back to the sender,
>   otherwise.

Does that mean this one has received testing and is good for -stable
now, or does it need some bake time?

thanks,
-chris

Re: [stable] [PATCH 2.6.21-stable] [IPV6]: Restore semantics of Routing Header processing.

[YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明]

In article <20070511162243.GC3516@sequoia.sous-sol.org> (at Fri, 11 May 2007 09:22:43 -0700), Chris Wright <chrisw@sous-sol.org> says:

> * YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 (yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org) wrote:
> > The "fix" for emerging security threats was overkill and it broke
> > basic semantic of IPv6 routing header processing.  We should assume
> > RT0 (or even RT2, depends on configuration) as "unknown" RH type so
> > that we
> > - silently ignore the routing header if segleft == 0
> > - or, send ICMPv6 Parameter Problem message back to the sender,
> >   otherwise.
> 
> Does that mean this one has received testing and is good for -stable
> now, or does it need some bake time?

Chris, I think it is okay, but
please wait for Dave's approval.
Thanks.

--yoshfuji

Re: [stable] [PATCH 2.6.21-stable] [IPV6]: Restore semantics of Routing Header processing.

[Chris Wright]

* YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 (yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org) wrote:
> Chris, I think it is okay, but
> please wait for Dave's approval.

Alright, will do.

thanks,
-chris

Re: [stable] [PATCH 2.6.21-stable] [IPV6]: Restore semantics of Routing Header processing.

[Chris Wright]

* YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 (yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org) wrote:
> In article <20070511162243.GC3516@sequoia.sous-sol.org> (at Fri, 11 May 2007 09:22:43 -0700), Chris Wright <chrisw@sous-sol.org> says:
> > * YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 (yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org) wrote:
> > > The "fix" for emerging security threats was overkill and it broke
> > > basic semantic of IPv6 routing header processing.  We should assume
> > > RT0 (or even RT2, depends on configuration) as "unknown" RH type so
> > > that we
> > > - silently ignore the routing header if segleft == 0
> > > - or, send ICMPv6 Parameter Problem message back to the sender,
> > >   otherwise.
> > 
> > Does that mean this one has received testing and is good for -stable
> > now, or does it need some bake time?
> 
> Chris, I think it is okay, but
> please wait for Dave's approval.

Any update on this one?

thanks,
-chris

Re: [stable] [PATCH 2.6.21-stable] [IPV6]: Restore semantics of Routing Header processing.

[Chris Wright]

* David Miller (davem@davemloft.net) wrote:
> We're not pushing this in, even the ipv6 working group is unsure
> how this should be handled and one of the possibilities they might
> choose matches how things currently are.

Alright, I'll drop this one from the -stable radar, thanks.
-chris