Hi,
On 7/16/19 8:12 PM, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 08:00:04PM +0200, Florian Westphal wrote:
>> Fernando Fernandez Mancera <ffmanc...@riseup.net> wrote:
>>> El 16 de julio de 2019 18:47:11 CEST, Phil Sutter <p...@nwl.cc> escribió:
>>>> Hi Pablo,
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 01:51:20PM +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>> diff --git a/src/evaluate.c b/src/evaluate.c
>>>>> index f95f42e1067a..cd566e856a11 100644
>>>>> --- a/src/evaluate.c
>>>>> +++ b/src/evaluate.c
>>>>> @@ -1984,17 +1984,9 @@ static int stmt_evaluate_verdict(struct
>>>> eval_ctx *ctx, struct stmt *stmt)
>>>>> case EXPR_VERDICT:
>>>>> if (stmt->expr->verdict != NFT_CONTINUE)
>>>>> stmt->flags |= STMT_F_TERMINAL;
>>>>> - if (stmt->expr->chain != NULL) {
>>>>> - if (expr_evaluate(ctx, &stmt->expr->chain) < 0)
>>>>> - return -1;
>>>>> - if ((stmt->expr->chain->etype != EXPR_SYMBOL &&
>>>>> - stmt->expr->chain->etype != EXPR_VALUE) ||
>>>>> - stmt->expr->chain->symtype != SYMBOL_VALUE) {
>>>>> - return stmt_error(ctx, stmt,
>>>>> - "invalid verdict chain
>>>>> expression %s\n",
>>>>> - expr_name(stmt->expr->chain));
>>>>> - }
>>>>> - }
>>>>
>>>> According to my logs, this bit was added by Fernando to cover for
>>>> invalid variable values[1]. So I fear we can't just drop this check.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers, Phil
>>>>
>>>> [1] I didn't check with current sources, but back then the following
>>>> variable contents were problematic:
>>>>
>>>> * define foo = @set1 (a set named 'set1' must exist)
>>>> * define foo = { 1024 }
>>>> * define foo = *
>>>
>>> Yes I am looking to the report and why current version fails when the jump
>>> is to a non-base chain because I tested that some months ago.
>>>
>>> I will catch up with more details in a few hours. Sorry for the
>>> inconveniences.
>>
>> Fernando, in case Pablos patch v2 fixes the reported bug, could you
>> followup with a test case? It would help when someone tries to remove
>> "unneeded code" in the future ;-)
I have been taking a look to the shell tests and we already have some
tests that cover these cases "tests/shell/testcases/chains/0001jumps_0",
"tests/shell/testcases/nft-f/0018jump_variable_0",
"tests/shell/testcases/nft-f/0019jump_variable_1",
"tests/shell/testcases/nft-f/0020jump_variable_1".
Also I have tested Pablo's v2 patch and it works fine for me.
I would like to know how could I prevent this kind of situations in the
future. Is there a way to automatically test your patch with other
relevant kernel versions?
Thanks! :-)
>
> I'm not sure it's worth a test for this unlikely corner case.
>
> There are thousands of paths where we're not performing strict
> expression validation as in this case... and if you really want to get
> this right.
>
