summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/include
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorFlorian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>2016-03-22 18:02:52 +0100
committerBen Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk>2016-05-01 00:06:15 +0200
commit366d36a8136fd4b34f6d30935693cb6b85915a25 (patch)
treed5c5d578ab2d6be1f1c36160f1c7e5d91b0ff981 /include
parent964787514290ffacd8eb051f3d34cbb200047f78 (diff)
netfilter: x_tables: fix unconditional helper
commit 54d83fc74aa9ec72794373cb47432c5f7fb1a309 upstream. Ben Hawkes says: In the mark_source_chains function (net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_tables.c) it is possible for a user-supplied ipt_entry structure to have a large next_offset field. This field is not bounds checked prior to writing a counter value at the supplied offset. Problem is that mark_source_chains should not have been called -- the rule doesn't have a next entry, so its supposed to return an absolute verdict of either ACCEPT or DROP. However, the function conditional() doesn't work as the name implies. It only checks that the rule is using wildcard address matching. However, an unconditional rule must also not be using any matches (no -m args). The underflow validator only checked the addresses, therefore passing the 'unconditional absolute verdict' test, while mark_source_chains also tested for presence of matches, and thus proceeeded to the next (not-existent) rule. Unify this so that all the callers have same idea of 'unconditional rule'. Reported-by: Ben Hawkes <hawkes@google.com> Signed-off-by: Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de> Signed-off-by: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org> Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk>
Diffstat (limited to 'include')
0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions