Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:3;
Date:   Tue, 12 Sep 2023 12:27:01 +0200
From:   Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>
To:     Linux regressions mailing list <regressions@lists.linux.dev>
Cc:     Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org>,
        Timo Sigurdsson <public_timo.s@silentcreek.de>,
        kadlec@netfilter.org, fw@strlen.de, davem@davemloft.net,
        edumazet@google.com, kuba@kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com,
        netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, coreteam@netfilter.org,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        stable@vger.kernel.org, sashal@kernel.org, carnil@debian.org,
        1051592@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Regression: Commit "netfilter: nf_tables: disallow rule addition
 to bound chain via NFTA_RULE_CHAIN_ID" breaks ruleset loading in
 linux-stable
Message-ID: <20230912102701.GA13516@breakpoint.cc>
References: <20230911213750.5B4B663206F5@dd20004.kasserver.com>
 <ZP+bUpxJiFcmTWhy@calendula>
 <b30a81fa-6b59-4bac-b109-99a4dca689de@leemhuis.info>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <b30a81fa-6b59-4bac-b109-99a4dca689de@leemhuis.info>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) <regressions@leemhuis.info> wrote:
> On 12.09.23 00:57, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> > Userspace nftables v1.0.6 generates incorrect bytecode that hits a new
> > kernel check that rejects adding rules to bound chains. The incorrect
> > bytecode adds the chain binding, attach it to the rule and it adds the
> > rules to the chain binding. I have cherry-picked these three patches
> > for nftables v1.0.6 userspace and your ruleset restores fine.
> > [...]
> 
> Hmmmm. Well, this sounds like a kernel regression to me that normally
> should be dealt with on the kernel level, as users after updating the
> kernel should never have to update any userspace stuff to continue what
> they have been doing before the kernel update.

This is a combo of a userspace bug and this new sanity check that
rejects the incorrect ordering (adding rules to the already-bound
anonymous chain).

nf_tables uses a transaction allor-nothing model, this means that any
error that occurs during a transaction has to be reverse/undo all the
pending changes.  This has caused a myriad of bugs already.

So while this can be theoretically fixed in the kernel I don't see
a sane way to do it.  Error unwinding / recovery from deeply nested
errors is already too complex for my taste.

> Can't the kernel somehow detect the incorrect bytecode and do the right
> thing(tm) somehow?

Theoretically yes, but I don't feel competent enough to do it, just look
at all the UaF bugs of the past month.