From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Authentication-Results: passt.top; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: passt.top; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=mimecast20190719 header.b=bWonUss2; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by passt.top (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5EA405A061D for ; Sun, 03 May 2026 23:56:13 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1777845372; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=iRp4JCbqIW37Vcqz7sKOush91h4HmocDm90cCO6ytsE=; b=bWonUss21OvHtSn1ks6xbpoO0hZnWyrAr9EOYnPBW6cnoynKcA18NHuz+Zgv9TBOvjiKXG kXlKWBAI1KL/T5BcakhzevpA6OePbwC44f9d2w6YC4Z6XhdISnIL5OYpBby7/zGg7rA38Z +LFX1vBcO8kRsmEO1MIAJEFRE+A2b6g= Received: from mail-wr1-f69.google.com (mail-wr1-f69.google.com [209.85.221.69]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-549-Vwf9zHaXOcyfhZ7LULyE-A-1; Sun, 03 May 2026 17:56:11 -0400 X-MC-Unique: Vwf9zHaXOcyfhZ7LULyE-A-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: Vwf9zHaXOcyfhZ7LULyE-A_1777845370 Received: by mail-wr1-f69.google.com with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-44a122a5128so1902940f8f.0 for ; Sun, 03 May 2026 14:56:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20251104; t=1777845370; x=1778450170; h=date:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:organization:references :in-reply-to:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:x-gm-gg :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=iRp4JCbqIW37Vcqz7sKOush91h4HmocDm90cCO6ytsE=; b=DeZ51zNuF0Fxde01/69RatlQQOxGMDRbhhpaSuCrRMaAL7ZN51NIpSOfAuHO3rHd8O 3xMC6ZUGpc+F8D44lzLO5XVkwDS/FfkvEx4LK08/P4MJe01gdEbsA8OccemYROhGEqnO 1DcH5COjYrrwoecD9Cu+BSorSBvrCtUAf693f4YVDtI/stwUtI4n46nuBgsXFSe/V+vL h+w4oXKkBJMNrhM77mgznY3qcY/mrXcFgQI5pXWIWca94ZGwFyWtp5UP+QjnmdrQE+ov aVWNhXENwQAZxmvW51vMSK33tZC6Mtob6n1uwUBh0vdkrCzYKoTs2WwOljVxCHxq1TBk 6j6g== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AFNElJ+Elo40RrnNpSwJY+wsjIjON9Zs9CxxkfG6na8jfXTy+xSB0CZDt4NG5omcW2mU1JYH+c1rYXNmcPM=@passt.top X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxpiShlp8LqxH6HPjYhgS1us52B3eK0yDh0m1bJHvEfmdV2BjS+ oY/UBh7KLD9NJoFDUtqZr/MTupvsQAgJDxwVrJd0w/NP5z92eyIQTQTfoXoo6jgHAxzsQQcZMqN ZEOLjFNVkuc6NARghdGyMpIkDmCYphDmuWLWHI7+IM4dnhbjAvSW/Ig== X-Gm-Gg: AeBDietk2BSIzTrEGdPKBjCjzWeaEwzbAGYpAeFl7t9uS3KN53E5Rznc1j6bNXOHl6O obYgp266vqzs1QyFdlMdYIuhqsikvoSgtj7ia7R11ui19KQ2dFBU9WgspdGCVCVmcSJjQInY1Gc NmRQTXmXlNvl3qkMg4J/W5qcFUksgmtuzFOwEjWRBZbbCx4wTDrxBd/02HC2r+91+UBz3mQgjQx 7PFWeYvOknvBCBDVqkTYOPL1pvwPyNNglqi6mWWStZB6KXC7pqvKJdDN6IMT2c4Dmy1nr3iyJHI 8OYJQvVlr8nqxJ0lMDiDiKziNQPpKKbdPvlAFQOltR2qOcNFNpuee6GSjuOQvs+mdIIu9fTzSxi iDDb+GkRZKANyN9pobGqUrjRn0b3bx0lNZ1dlVTv0nt4= X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:3e0e:b0:48a:52ce:a4b1 with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-48a98893048mr125011345e9.15.1777845369885; Sun, 03 May 2026 14:56:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:3e0e:b0:48a:52ce:a4b1 with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-48a98893048mr125011055e9.15.1777845369399; Sun, 03 May 2026 14:56:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from maya.myfinge.rs (ifcgrfdd.trafficplex.cloud. [2a10:fc81:a806:d6a9::1]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 5b1f17b1804b1-48a8eba8487sm216370205e9.11.2026.05.03.14.56.08 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sun, 03 May 2026 14:56:08 -0700 (PDT) From: Stefano Brivio To: David Gibson Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 01/18] conf, fwd: Stricter rule checking in fwd_rule_add() Message-ID: <20260503235607.70fea978@elisabeth> In-Reply-To: References: <20260421062516.2601204-1-david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> <20260421062516.2601204-2-david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> Organization: Red Hat X-Mailer: Claws Mail 4.2.0 (GTK 3.24.49; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Sun, 03 May 2026 23:56:08 +0200 (CEST) X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-MFC-PROC-ID: JzIwSn65_ElMfcTmEa3_OmitWRiu7fFIQWaqidFcA0w_1777845370 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID-Hash: U4B36NEQMHCVGDSYR2PRPZU6YXSGCCLT X-Message-ID-Hash: U4B36NEQMHCVGDSYR2PRPZU6YXSGCCLT X-MailFrom: sbrivio@redhat.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header CC: Jon Maloy , passt-dev@passt.top X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.8 Precedence: list List-Id: Development discussion and patches for passt Archived-At: Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On Sun, 26 Apr 2026 11:31:24 +1000 David Gibson wrote: > On Sat, Apr 25, 2026 at 11:31:40AM -0400, Jon Maloy wrote: > > > > > > On 2026-04-21 02:24, David Gibson wrote: > > > Although fwd_rule_add() performs some sanity checks on the rule it is > > > given, there are invalid rules we don't check for, assuming that its > > > callers will do that. > > > > > > > > diff --git a/fwd.c b/fwd.c > > > index c7fd1a9d..979c1494 100644 > > > --- a/fwd.c > > > +++ b/fwd.c > > > @@ -367,17 +367,59 @@ int fwd_rule_add(struct fwd_table *fwd, const struct fwd_rule *new) > > > new->first, new->last); > > > return -EINVAL; > > > } > > > + if (!new->first) { > > > + warn("Forwarding rule attempts to map from port 0"); > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > + } > > > + if (!new->to || > > > + (in_port_t)(new->to + new->last - new->first) < new->to) { > > > + warn("Forwarding rule attempts to map to port 0"); > > > > Not strictly true. We are also catching a range overflow case. > > Maybe "Forwarding rule maps to invalid port number" > > Well.. the specific overflow case is that the target range "wraps > around", thereby covering port 0, is the reasoning here. ...and any other range overflow case is covered by the earlier check: if (new->first > new->last) { warn("Rule has invalid port range %u-%u", new->first, new->last); return -EINVAL; } so I'm leaving this as it was, in v6. -- Stefano