Fix data leak between mux.cool connections

[mmmray]

Fix #116

This issue does not appear at all if mux.cool is disabled. Maybe the issue can be avoided if routing is disabled too, but it's possible that the same issue appears elsewhere.

I have debugged this issue in prod with a lot of print statements, and can confirm that this patch fixes it. Tests should be added. The mux server has no tests at all!

Step-by-step:

1. The mux server is calling handleStatusNew with the same context multiple times. That function then calls w.dispatcher.Dispatch

2. Dispatch assigns some values specific to the connection onto the outbound here:

   Xray-core/app/dispatcher/default.go

   Lines 241 to 242 in 83eef6b

   	ob.OriginalTarget = destination
   	ob.Target = destination

3. Because the outbounds array on the connection object is the same across multiple connections (it's the same context), the value of outbound.Target flips back and forth between values such as "1.1.1.1" or "chat.facebook.com" (IPAddress vs DomainAddress)

4. Many layers deeper in routing, as part of this Dispatch call, this function is called:

   Xray-core/features/routing/session/context.go

   Lines 53 to 55 in 83eef6b

   	if ctx.Outbound.Target.Address.Family().IsIP() {
   	return []net.IP{ctx.Outbound.Target.Address.IP()}
   	}

   It does two things, in order:

   1. Checks if Target is an IPAddress (IsIP)
   2. If it's an IP, call IP()

   Because Target keeps mutating back and forth between multiple kinds
   of address, it sometimes is an IP for Step 1, and a DomainAddress for
   Step 2

5. Calling IP() on a DomainAddress panics:

    panic: Calling IP() on a DomainAddress.
   
    goroutine 123018 [running]:
    github.com/xtls/xray-core/common/net.domainAddress.IP(...)
        github.com/xtls/xray-core/common/net/address.go:172
    github.com/xtls/xray-core/features/routing/session.(*Context).GetTargetIPs(0xc004175428)
        github.com/xtls/xray-core/features/routing/session/context.go:54 +0x5f
    github.com/xtls/xray-core/app/router.(*MultiGeoIPMatcher).Apply(0xc0003a63e0, {0x156c770?, 0xc004175428?})
        github.com/xtls/xray-core/app/router/condition.go:143 +0x3e
    github.com/xtls/xray-core/app/router.(*ConditionChan).Apply(0x495c9d?, {0x156c770, 0xc004175428})
        github.com/xtls/xray-core/app/router/condition.go:32 +0x5c
    github.com/xtls/xray-core/app/router.(*Rule).Apply(...)
        github.com/xtls/xray-core/app/router/config.go:30
    github.com/xtls/xray-core/app/router.(*Router).pickRouteInternal(0xc000367a40, {0x156c770, 0xc004175428})
        github.com/xtls/xray-core/app/router/router.go:196 +0x176
    github.com/xtls/xray-core/app/router.(*Router).PickRoute(0x1562810?, {0x156c770?, 0xc004175428?})
        github.com/xtls/xray-core/app/router/router.go:84 +0x25
    github.com/xtls/xray-core/app/dispatcher.(*DefaultDispatcher).routedDispatch(0xc000398fc0, {0x1562810, 0xc0050cd350}, 0xc00418dea0, {{0x15625a8, 0xc005974c10}, 0x1bb, 0x2})
        github.com/xtls/xray-core/app/dispatcher/default.go:420 +0x307
    created by github.com/xtls/xray-core/app/dispatcher.(*DefaultDispatcher).Dispatch in goroutine 123015
        github.com/xtls/xray-core/app/dispatcher/default.go:252 +0x56c
   

[mmmray]

Without mux, the outbounds array is reset entirely for every connection: https://github.com/mmmray/Xray-core/blob/7a80df07b2aa83685d41d72885d201ab47ef9c05/app/proxyman/inbound/worker.go#L83

maybe it's a more appropriate fix?

[mmmray]

@yuhan6665 or @RPRX please review, if you have ideas on how to test, tell me as well.

[yuhan6665]

Thanks for your great investigation @mmmray!
I have another thought:
These addresses has been confusing. As far as I know, we will only have three different target addresses (at most): original from protocol, sniffed, and for routing. Why do we need to mutate? We can refactor so that these addresses should never change?
Maybe, add a convenient function like check if original is fake IP and return sniffed instead..
What do you think @RPRX?

[mmmray]

Going even further, I don't know why the context is used to carry Target at all. I suppose that somewhere, it was too annoying to pass as function argument, but I did not notice it. But i'm also new to the code.

[yuhan6665]

In general, context should contain (as much as) session level information. I think inbound, outbounds so on and so forth info is ok. XTLS also use it pass raw conn object. A bit strange but I think it is also ok.

[mmmray]

I think some refactoring in this area is really needed. The other one is around casting to PacketConnWrapper (see #3711 #3559). Anyway, maybe for another time.

[sssagsag]

I think some refactoring in this area is really needed. The other one is around casting to PacketConnWrapper (see #3711 #3559). Anyway, maybe for another time.

thanks for investigating and fixing , please build new version of core soon as possible
It has been almost a month that the core with new merges has not been released
@RPRX not planning for build new versions?

[mmmray]

Indeed I think a new version should be released soon. There are a few bugfixes, and this new fragment PR sitting around in master doesn't help with its lifetime. I was hoping to wait for #3711 though. Let's see.

I think the next version was planned to be related to splithttp mux settings, but... it's ready when it's ready IMO and shouldn't hold up critical bugfixes.

[sssagsag]

Indeed I think a new version should be released soon. There are a few bugfixes, and this new fragment PR sitting around in master doesn't help with its lifetime. I was hoping to wait for #3711 though. Let's see.

The new fragment pr has no problem with ws or httpupgrade any operator in I r a n i used now, please don't make a cover for it 😆

and splithttp almost blocked in iran , beacuse udp blocked in many isp

[mikeesierrah]

@sssagsag nope , thats not true

splithttp isnt based on quic , udp mode - quic - h3 is optional

[sssagsag]

@sssagsag nope , thats not true

splithttp isnt based on quic , udp mode - quic - h3 is optional

yes iknow , but i cant used without h3 , with many isp

[sssagsag]

Indeed I think a new version should be released soon. There are a few bugfixes, and this new fragment PR sitting around in master doesn't help with its lifetime. I was hoping to wait for #3711 though. Let's see.

I think the next version was planned to be related to splithttp mux settings, but... it's ready when it's ready IMO and shouldn't hold up critical bugfixes.

maybe this pr helped #3677