Re: [PATCH net v4] net: netfilter: Fix port selection of FTP for NF_NAT_RANGE_PROTO_SPECIFIED

On Thu, 2021-09-16 at 13:26 +0200, Florian Westphal wrote:

Cole Dishington [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

+	/* Avoid applying nat->range to the reply direction */
+	if (!exp->dir || !nat->range_info.min_proto.all || !nat-

quoted

range_info.max_proto.all) {

+		min = ntohs(exp->saved_proto.tcp.port);
+		range_size = 65535 - min + 1;
+	} else {
+		min = ntohs(nat->range_info.min_proto.all);
+		range_size = ntohs(nat->range_info.max_proto.all) - min
+ 1;
+	}
+
 	/* Try to get same port: if not, try to change it. */
-	for (port = ntohs(exp->saved_proto.tcp.port); port != 0;
port++) {
-		int ret;
+	first_port = ntohs(exp->saved_proto.tcp.port);
+	if (min > first_port || first_port > (min + range_size - 1))
+		first_port = min;
 
+	for (i = 0, port = first_port; i < range_size; i++, port =
(port - first_port + i) % range_size) {

This looks complicated.  As far as I understand, this could instead
be
written like this (not even compile tested):

	/* Avoid applying nat->range to the reply direction */
	if (!exp->dir || !nat->range_info.min_proto.all || !nat-

quoted

range_info.max_proto.all) {

		min = 1;
		max = 65535;
		range_size = 65535;
	} else {
		min = ntohs(nat->range_info.min_proto.all);
		max = ntohs(nat->range_info.max_proto.all);
		range_size = max - min + 1;
	}

The original code defined the range as [ntohs(exp->saved_proto.tcp.port), 65535]. The above would
cause a change in behaviour, should we try to avoid it?

  	/* Try to get same port: if not, try to change it. */
	port = ntohs(exp->saved_proto.tcp.port);

	if (port < min || port > max)
		port = min;

	for (i = 0; i < range_size; i++) {
  		exp->tuple.dst.u.tcp.port = htons(port);
  		ret = nf_ct_expect_related(exp, 0);
		if (ret != -EBUSY)
 			break;
		port++;
		if (port > max)
			port = min;
  	}

	if (ret != 0) {
	...

AFAICS this is the same, we loop at most range_size times,
in case range_size is 64k, we will loop through all (hmmm,
not good actually, but better make that a different change)
else through given min - max range.

If orig port was in-range, we try it first, then increment.
If port exceeds upper bound, cycle back to min.

What do you think?

Looks good, just the one question above.

Thanks for your time reviewing!