[PATCH] netfilter: nf_conntrack_sip: fix the ct_sip_parse_numerical_param() return value.

[PATCH] netfilter: nf_conntrack_sip: fix the ct_sip_parse_numerical_param() return value.

[Gavrilov Ilia]

ct_sip_parse_numerical_param() returns only 0 or 1 now.
But process_register_request() and process_register_response() imply
checking for a negative value if parsing of a numerical header parameter
failed. Let's fix it.

Found by InfoTeCS on behalf of Linux Verification Center
(linuxtesting.org) with SVACE.

Fixes: 0f32a40fc91a ("[NETFILTER]: nf_conntrack_sip: create signalling expectations")
Signed-off-by: Ilia.Gavrilov <Ilia.Gavrilov@infotecs.ru>
---
 net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_sip.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_sip.c b/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_sip.c
index 77f5e82d8e3f..d0eac27f6ba0 100644
--- a/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_sip.c
+++ b/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_sip.c
@@ -611,7 +611,7 @@ int ct_sip_parse_numerical_param(const struct nf_conn *ct, const char *dptr,
 	start += strlen(name);
 	*val = simple_strtoul(start, &end, 0);
 	if (start == end)
-		return 0;
+		return -1;
 	if (matchoff && matchlen) {
 		*matchoff = start - dptr;
 		*matchlen = end - start;
-- 
2.30.2

Re: [PATCH] netfilter: nf_conntrack_sip: fix the ct_sip_parse_numerical_param() return value.

[Simon Horman]

On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 03:04:31PM +0000, Gavrilov Ilia wrote:
> ct_sip_parse_numerical_param() returns only 0 or 1 now.
> But process_register_request() and process_register_response() imply
> checking for a negative value if parsing of a numerical header parameter
> failed. Let's fix it.
> 
> Found by InfoTeCS on behalf of Linux Verification Center
> (linuxtesting.org) with SVACE.
> 
> Fixes: 0f32a40fc91a ("[NETFILTER]: nf_conntrack_sip: create signalling expectations")
> Signed-off-by: Ilia.Gavrilov <Ilia.Gavrilov@infotecs.ru>

Hi Gavrilov,

although it is a slightly unusual convention for kernel code,
I believe the intention is that this function returns 0 when
it fails (to parse) and 1 on success. So I think that part is fine.

What seems a bit broken is the way that callers use the return value.

1. The call in process_register_response() looks like this:

	ret = ct_sip_parse_numerical_param(...)
	if (ret < 0) {
		nf_ct_helper_log(skb, ct, "cannot parse expires");
		return NF_DROP;
	}

    But ret can only be 0 or 1, so the error handling is never inoked,
    and a failure to parse is ignored. I guess failure doesn't occur in
    practice.

    I suspect this should be:

	ret = ct_sip_parse_numerical_param(...)
	if (!ret) {
		nf_ct_helper_log(skb, ct, "cannot parse expires");
		return NF_DROP;
	}

2. The callprocess_register_request() looks like this:

        if (ct_sip_parse_numerical_param(...)) {
                nf_ct_helper_log(skb, ct, "cannot parse expires");
                return NF_DROP;
        }

   But this seems to treat success as an error and vice versa.

        if (!ct_sip_parse_numerical_param(...)) {
                nf_ct_helper_log(skb, ct, "cannot parse expires");
                return NF_DROP;
        }

  Or, better:

        ret = ct_sip_parse_numerical_param(...);
	if (!ret) {
		...
	}


3. The invocation in nf_nat_sip() looks like this:

	if (ct_sip_parse_numerical_param(...) > 0 &&
	    ...)
	    ...

   This seems correct to me.

> ---
>  net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_sip.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_sip.c b/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_sip.c
> index 77f5e82d8e3f..d0eac27f6ba0 100644
> --- a/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_sip.c
> +++ b/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_sip.c
> @@ -611,7 +611,7 @@ int ct_sip_parse_numerical_param(const struct nf_conn *ct, const char *dptr,
>  	start += strlen(name);
>  	*val = simple_strtoul(start, &end, 0);
>  	if (start == end)
> -		return 0;
> +		return -1;
>  	if (matchoff && matchlen) {
>  		*matchoff = start - dptr;
>  		*matchlen = end - start;
> -- 
> 2.30.2
> 

Re: [PATCH] netfilter: nf_conntrack_sip: fix the ct_sip_parse_numerical_param() return value.

[Gavrilov Ilia]

On 4/28/23 22:24, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 03:04:31PM +0000, Gavrilov Ilia wrote:
>> ct_sip_parse_numerical_param() returns only 0 or 1 now.
>> But process_register_request() and process_register_response() imply
>> checking for a negative value if parsing of a numerical header parameter
>> failed. Let's fix it.
>>
>> Found by InfoTeCS on behalf of Linux Verification Center
>> (linuxtesting.org) with SVACE.
>>
>> Fixes: 0f32a40fc91a ("[NETFILTER]: nf_conntrack_sip: create signalling expectations")
>> Signed-off-by: Ilia.Gavrilov <Ilia.Gavrilov@infotecs.ru>
> 
> Hi Gavrilov,
> 

Hi Simon, thank you for your answer.

> although it is a slightly unusual convention for kernel code,
> I believe the intention is that this function returns 0 when
> it fails (to parse) and 1 on success. So I think that part is fine.
> 
> What seems a bit broken is the way that callers use the return value.
> 
> 1. The call in process_register_response() looks like this:
> 
> 	ret = ct_sip_parse_numerical_param(...)
> 	if (ret < 0) {
> 		nf_ct_helper_log(skb, ct, "cannot parse expires");
> 		return NF_DROP;
> 	}
> 
>      But ret can only be 0 or 1, so the error handling is never inoked,
>      and a failure to parse is ignored. I guess failure doesn't occur in
>      practice.
> 
>      I suspect this should be:
> 
> 	ret = ct_sip_parse_numerical_param(...)
> 	if (!ret) {
> 		nf_ct_helper_log(skb, ct, "cannot parse expires");
> 		return NF_DROP;
> 	}
> 

ct_sip_parse_numerical_param() returns 0 in to cases 1) when the 
parameter 'expires=' isn't found in the header or 2) it's incorrectly set.
In the first case, the return value should be ignored, since this is a 
normal situation
In the second case, it's better to write to the log and return NF_DROP, 
or ignore it too, then checking the return value can be removed as 
unnecessary.


> 2. The callprocess_register_request() looks like this:
> 
>          if (ct_sip_parse_numerical_param(...)) {
>                  nf_ct_helper_log(skb, ct, "cannot parse expires");
>                  return NF_DROP;
>          }
> 
>     But this seems to treat success as an error and vice versa.
> 
>          if (!ct_sip_parse_numerical_param(...)) {
>                  nf_ct_helper_log(skb, ct, "cannot parse expires");
>                  return NF_DROP;
>          }
> 
>    Or, better:
> 
>          ret = ct_sip_parse_numerical_param(...);
> 	if (!ret) {
> 		...
> 	}
> 

Here is the same as in process_register_response()

ret = ct_sip_parse_numerical_param(...);
if (ret < 0) {
    ...
    return NF_DROP;
}

Maybe it's better to remove the check altogether?



> 
> 3. The invocation in nf_nat_sip() looks like this:
> 
> 	if (ct_sip_parse_numerical_param(...) > 0 &&
> 	    ...)
> 	    ...
> 
>     This seems correct to me.

I agree, everything seems correct here

> 
>> ---
>>   net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_sip.c | 2 +-
>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_sip.c b/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_sip.c
>> index 77f5e82d8e3f..d0eac27f6ba0 100644
>> --- a/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_sip.c
>> +++ b/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_sip.c
>> @@ -611,7 +611,7 @@ int ct_sip_parse_numerical_param(const struct nf_conn *ct, const char *dptr,
>>   	start += strlen(name);
>>   	*val = simple_strtoul(start, &end, 0);
>>   	if (start == end)
>> -		return 0;
>> +		return -1;
>>   	if (matchoff && matchlen) {
>>   		*matchoff = start - dptr;
>>   		*matchlen = end - start;
>> -- 
>> 2.30.2
>>

Re: [PATCH] netfilter: nf_conntrack_sip: fix the ct_sip_parse_numerical_param() return value.

[Simon Horman]

On Tue, May 02, 2023 at 11:43:19AM +0000, Gavrilov Ilia wrote:
> On 4/28/23 22:24, Simon Horman wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 03:04:31PM +0000, Gavrilov Ilia wrote:
> >> ct_sip_parse_numerical_param() returns only 0 or 1 now.
> >> But process_register_request() and process_register_response() imply
> >> checking for a negative value if parsing of a numerical header parameter
> >> failed. Let's fix it.
> >>
> >> Found by InfoTeCS on behalf of Linux Verification Center
> >> (linuxtesting.org) with SVACE.
> >>
> >> Fixes: 0f32a40fc91a ("[NETFILTER]: nf_conntrack_sip: create signalling expectations")
> >> Signed-off-by: Ilia.Gavrilov <Ilia.Gavrilov@infotecs.ru>
> > 
> > Hi Gavrilov,
> > 
> 
> Hi Simon, thank you for your answer.
> 
> > although it is a slightly unusual convention for kernel code,
> > I believe the intention is that this function returns 0 when
> > it fails (to parse) and 1 on success. So I think that part is fine.
> > 
> > What seems a bit broken is the way that callers use the return value.
> > 
> > 1. The call in process_register_response() looks like this:
> > 
> > 	ret = ct_sip_parse_numerical_param(...)
> > 	if (ret < 0) {
> > 		nf_ct_helper_log(skb, ct, "cannot parse expires");
> > 		return NF_DROP;
> > 	}
> > 
> >      But ret can only be 0 or 1, so the error handling is never inoked,
> >      and a failure to parse is ignored. I guess failure doesn't occur in
> >      practice.
> > 
> >      I suspect this should be:
> > 
> > 	ret = ct_sip_parse_numerical_param(...)
> > 	if (!ret) {
> > 		nf_ct_helper_log(skb, ct, "cannot parse expires");
> > 		return NF_DROP;
> > 	}
> > 
> 
> ct_sip_parse_numerical_param() returns 0 in to cases 1) when the 
> parameter 'expires=' isn't found in the header or 2) it's incorrectly set.
> In the first case, the return value should be ignored, since this is a 
> normal situation
> In the second case, it's better to write to the log and return NF_DROP, 
> or ignore it too, then checking the return value can be removed as 
> unnecessary.

Sorry, I think I misunderstood the intention of your patch earlier.

Do I (now) understand correctly that you are proposing a tristate?

a) return 1 if value is found; *val is set
b) return 0 if value is not found; *val is unchanged
c) return -1 on error; *val is undefined

Re: [PATCH] netfilter: nf_conntrack_sip: fix the ct_sip_parse_numerical_param() return value.

[Gavrilov Ilia]

On 5/2/23 17:05, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Tue, May 02, 2023 at 11:43:19AM +0000, Gavrilov Ilia wrote:
>> On 4/28/23 22:24, Simon Horman wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 03:04:31PM +0000, Gavrilov Ilia wrote:
>>>> ct_sip_parse_numerical_param() returns only 0 or 1 now.
>>>> But process_register_request() and process_register_response() imply
>>>> checking for a negative value if parsing of a numerical header parameter
>>>> failed. Let's fix it.
>>>>
>>>> Found by InfoTeCS on behalf of Linux Verification Center
>>>> (linuxtesting.org) with SVACE.
>>>>
>>>> Fixes: 0f32a40fc91a ("[NETFILTER]: nf_conntrack_sip: create signalling expectations")
>>>> Signed-off-by: Ilia.Gavrilov <Ilia.Gavrilov@infotecs.ru>
>>>
>>> Hi Gavrilov,
>>>
>>
>> Hi Simon, thank you for your answer.
>>
>>> although it is a slightly unusual convention for kernel code,
>>> I believe the intention is that this function returns 0 when
>>> it fails (to parse) and 1 on success. So I think that part is fine.
>>>
>>> What seems a bit broken is the way that callers use the return value.
>>>
>>> 1. The call in process_register_response() looks like this:
>>>
>>> 	ret = ct_sip_parse_numerical_param(...)
>>> 	if (ret < 0) {
>>> 		nf_ct_helper_log(skb, ct, "cannot parse expires");
>>> 		return NF_DROP;
>>> 	}
>>>
>>>       But ret can only be 0 or 1, so the error handling is never inoked,
>>>       and a failure to parse is ignored. I guess failure doesn't occur in
>>>       practice.
>>>
>>>       I suspect this should be:
>>>
>>> 	ret = ct_sip_parse_numerical_param(...)
>>> 	if (!ret) {
>>> 		nf_ct_helper_log(skb, ct, "cannot parse expires");
>>> 		return NF_DROP;
>>> 	}
>>>
>>
>> ct_sip_parse_numerical_param() returns 0 in to cases 1) when the
>> parameter 'expires=' isn't found in the header or 2) it's incorrectly set.
>> In the first case, the return value should be ignored, since this is a
>> normal situation
>> In the second case, it's better to write to the log and return NF_DROP,
>> or ignore it too, then checking the return value can be removed as
>> unnecessary.
> 
> Sorry, I think I misunderstood the intention of your patch earlier.
> 
> Do I (now) understand correctly that you are proposing a tristate?
> 
> a) return 1 if value is found; *val is set
> b) return 0 if value is not found; *val is unchanged
> c) return -1 on error; *val is undefined

Yes, it seems to me that this was originally intended.

Re: [PATCH] netfilter: nf_conntrack_sip: fix the ct_sip_parse_numerical_param() return value.

[Simon Horman]

On Tue, May 02, 2023 at 02:16:09PM +0000, Gavrilov Ilia wrote:
> On 5/2/23 17:05, Simon Horman wrote:
> > On Tue, May 02, 2023 at 11:43:19AM +0000, Gavrilov Ilia wrote:
> >> On 4/28/23 22:24, Simon Horman wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 03:04:31PM +0000, Gavrilov Ilia wrote:
> >>>> ct_sip_parse_numerical_param() returns only 0 or 1 now.
> >>>> But process_register_request() and process_register_response() imply
> >>>> checking for a negative value if parsing of a numerical header parameter
> >>>> failed. Let's fix it.
> >>>>
> >>>> Found by InfoTeCS on behalf of Linux Verification Center
> >>>> (linuxtesting.org) with SVACE.
> >>>>
> >>>> Fixes: 0f32a40fc91a ("[NETFILTER]: nf_conntrack_sip: create signalling expectations")
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Ilia.Gavrilov <Ilia.Gavrilov@infotecs.ru>
> >>>
> >>> Hi Gavrilov,
> >>>
> >>
> >> Hi Simon, thank you for your answer.
> >>
> >>> although it is a slightly unusual convention for kernel code,
> >>> I believe the intention is that this function returns 0 when
> >>> it fails (to parse) and 1 on success. So I think that part is fine.
> >>>
> >>> What seems a bit broken is the way that callers use the return value.
> >>>
> >>> 1. The call in process_register_response() looks like this:
> >>>
> >>> 	ret = ct_sip_parse_numerical_param(...)
> >>> 	if (ret < 0) {
> >>> 		nf_ct_helper_log(skb, ct, "cannot parse expires");
> >>> 		return NF_DROP;
> >>> 	}
> >>>
> >>>       But ret can only be 0 or 1, so the error handling is never inoked,
> >>>       and a failure to parse is ignored. I guess failure doesn't occur in
> >>>       practice.
> >>>
> >>>       I suspect this should be:
> >>>
> >>> 	ret = ct_sip_parse_numerical_param(...)
> >>> 	if (!ret) {
> >>> 		nf_ct_helper_log(skb, ct, "cannot parse expires");
> >>> 		return NF_DROP;
> >>> 	}
> >>>
> >>
> >> ct_sip_parse_numerical_param() returns 0 in to cases 1) when the
> >> parameter 'expires=' isn't found in the header or 2) it's incorrectly set.
> >> In the first case, the return value should be ignored, since this is a
> >> normal situation
> >> In the second case, it's better to write to the log and return NF_DROP,
> >> or ignore it too, then checking the return value can be removed as
> >> unnecessary.
> > 
> > Sorry, I think I misunderstood the intention of your patch earlier.
> > 
> > Do I (now) understand correctly that you are proposing a tristate?
> > 
> > a) return 1 if value is found; *val is set
> > b) return 0 if value is not found; *val is unchanged
> > c) return -1 on error; *val is undefined
> 
> Yes, it seems to me that this was originally intended.

Thanks. With my new found understanding, this looks good to me.

Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <simon.horman@corigine.com>

Re: [PATCH] netfilter: nf_conntrack_sip: fix the ct_sip_parse_numerical_param() return value.

[Gavrilov Ilia]

On 5/2/23 18:38, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Tue, May 02, 2023 at 02:16:09PM +0000, Gavrilov Ilia wrote:
>> On 5/2/23 17:05, Simon Horman wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 02, 2023 at 11:43:19AM +0000, Gavrilov Ilia wrote:
>>>> On 4/28/23 22:24, Simon Horman wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 03:04:31PM +0000, Gavrilov Ilia wrote:
>>>>>> ct_sip_parse_numerical_param() returns only 0 or 1 now.
>>>>>> But process_register_request() and process_register_response() imply
>>>>>> checking for a negative value if parsing of a numerical header parameter
>>>>>> failed. Let's fix it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Found by InfoTeCS on behalf of Linux Verification Center
>>>>>> (linuxtesting.org) with SVACE.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fixes: 0f32a40fc91a ("[NETFILTER]: nf_conntrack_sip: create signalling expectations")
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Ilia.Gavrilov <Ilia.Gavrilov@infotecs.ru>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Gavrilov,
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Simon, thank you for your answer.
>>>>
>>>>> although it is a slightly unusual convention for kernel code,
>>>>> I believe the intention is that this function returns 0 when
>>>>> it fails (to parse) and 1 on success. So I think that part is fine.
>>>>>
>>>>> What seems a bit broken is the way that callers use the return value.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. The call in process_register_response() looks like this:
>>>>>
>>>>> 	ret = ct_sip_parse_numerical_param(...)
>>>>> 	if (ret < 0) {
>>>>> 		nf_ct_helper_log(skb, ct, "cannot parse expires");
>>>>> 		return NF_DROP;
>>>>> 	}
>>>>>
>>>>>        But ret can only be 0 or 1, so the error handling is never inoked,
>>>>>        and a failure to parse is ignored. I guess failure doesn't occur in
>>>>>        practice.
>>>>>
>>>>>        I suspect this should be:
>>>>>
>>>>> 	ret = ct_sip_parse_numerical_param(...)
>>>>> 	if (!ret) {
>>>>> 		nf_ct_helper_log(skb, ct, "cannot parse expires");
>>>>> 		return NF_DROP;
>>>>> 	}
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ct_sip_parse_numerical_param() returns 0 in to cases 1) when the
>>>> parameter 'expires=' isn't found in the header or 2) it's incorrectly set.
>>>> In the first case, the return value should be ignored, since this is a
>>>> normal situation
>>>> In the second case, it's better to write to the log and return NF_DROP,
>>>> or ignore it too, then checking the return value can be removed as
>>>> unnecessary.
>>>
>>> Sorry, I think I misunderstood the intention of your patch earlier.
>>>
>>> Do I (now) understand correctly that you are proposing a tristate?
>>>
>>> a) return 1 if value is found; *val is set
>>> b) return 0 if value is not found; *val is unchanged
>>> c) return -1 on error; *val is undefined
>>
>> Yes, it seems to me that this was originally intended.
> 
> Thanks. With my new found understanding, this looks good to me.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <simon.horman@corigine.com>
> 

Hi, Simon.
I'm sorry to bother you.
Will this patch be applied or rejected?

Вest regards, Ilya.

Re: [PATCH] netfilter: nf_conntrack_sip: fix the ct_sip_parse_numerical_param() return value.

[Florian Westphal]

Gavrilov Ilia <Ilia.Gavrilov@infotecs.ru> wrote:
> Hi, Simon.
> I'm sorry to bother you.
> Will this patch be applied or rejected?

Please resend, keeping Simons Reviewd-by tag.
Please update the commit message as per your and Simons
conversation, i.e. that the return value is now a tristate,
0 for not found and -1 for 'malformed' and that you checked
all callers that they will do the right thing.