From: Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>
To: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org>
Cc: "Fabian Bläse" <fabian@blaese.de>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org,
"Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] icmp: fix icmp_ndo_send address translation for reply direction
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2025 14:15:53 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aLBIeS4_x7dbrL-j@strlen.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aLBE2Ee7pUBzUupH@calendula>
Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 11:14:35AM +0200, Fabian Bläse wrote:
> > The icmp_ndo_send function was originally introduced to ensure proper
> > rate limiting when icmp_send is called by a network device driver,
> > where the packet's source address may have already been transformed
> > by SNAT.
> >
> > However, the original implementation only considers the
> > IP_CT_DIR_ORIGINAL direction for SNAT and always replaced the packet's
> > source address with that of the original-direction tuple. This causes
> > two problems:
> >
> > 1. For SNAT:
> > Reply-direction packets were incorrectly translated using the source
> > address of the CT original direction, even though no translation is
> > required.
> >
> > 2. For DNAT:
> > Reply-direction packets were not handled at all. In DNAT, the original
> > direction's destination is translated. Therefore, in the reply
> > direction the source address must be set to the reply-direction
> > source, so rate limiting works as intended.
> >
> > Fix this by using the connection direction to select the correct tuple
> > for source address translation, and adjust the pre-checks to handle
> > reply-direction packets in case of DNAT.
> >
> > Additionally, wrap the `ct->status` access in READ_ONCE(). This avoids
> > possible KCSAN reports about concurrent updates to `ct->status`.
>
> I think such concurrent update cannot not happen, NAT bits are only
> set for the first packet of a connection, which sets up the nat
> configuration, so READ_ONCE() can go away.
Yes, the NAT bits stay in place but not other flags in ->status, e.g.
DYING, ASSURED, etc.
So I believe its needed, concurrent update of ->status is possible and
KCSAN would warn. Other spots either use READ_ONCE or use test_bit().
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-08-28 12:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-08-25 20:17 [PATCH] icmp: fix icmp_ndo_send address translation for reply direction Fabian Bläse
2025-08-25 20:38 ` [PATCH v2] " Fabian Bläse
2025-08-27 9:05 ` Florian Westphal
2025-08-27 17:12 ` Fabian Bläse
2025-08-27 17:25 ` Florian Westphal
2025-08-28 9:14 ` [PATCH v3] " Fabian Bläse
2025-08-28 12:00 ` Pablo Neira Ayuso
2025-08-28 12:15 ` Florian Westphal [this message]
2025-08-28 12:33 ` Pablo Neira Ayuso
2025-08-28 12:48 ` Florian Westphal
2025-08-28 12:48 ` Florian Westphal
2025-09-01 20:20 ` patchwork-bot+netdevbpf
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=aLBIeS4_x7dbrL-j@strlen.de \
--to=fw@strlen.de \
--cc=Jason@zx2c4.com \
--cc=fabian@blaese.de \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pablo@netfilter.org \
/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 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).