netdev - Re: [patch net] ipv6: do not create neighbor entries for local delivery

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 08 Aug 2013 16:23:52 -0300
From:	Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <mleitner@...hat.com>
To:	Debabrata Banerjee <dbavatar@...il.com>,
	Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
	"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
	"jmorris@...ei.org" <jmorris@...ei.org>,
	"yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org" <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>,
	"Banerjee, Debabrata" <dbanerje@...mai.com>,
	Joshua Hunt <johunt@...mai.com>
Subject: Re: [patch net] ipv6: do not create neighbor entries for local delivery

Em 08-08-2013 16:16, Hannes Frederic Sowa escreveu:
> On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 04:11:28PM -0300, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
>> Em 08-08-2013 16:06, Hannes Frederic Sowa escreveu:
>>> On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 04:02:36PM -0300, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
>>>> Em 08-08-2013 16:01, Hannes Frederic Sowa escreveu:
>>>>> On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 02:45:40PM -0400, Debabrata Banerjee wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 3:26 AM, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us> wrote:
>>>>>>> From: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <mleitner@...hat.com>
>>>>>> I'm not sure this patch is doing the right thing. It seems to break
>>>>>> IPv6 loopback functionality, it is no longer equivalent to IPv4, as
>>>>>> stated above. It doesn't just stop neighbor creation but it stops
>>>>>> cached route creation. Seems like a scary change for a stable tree.
>>>>>> See below:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> $ ip -4 route show local
>>>>>> local 127.0.0.0/8 dev lo  proto kernel  scope host  src 127.0.0.1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This local route enables us to use the whole loopback network, any
>>>>>> address inside 127.0.0.0/8 will work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> $ ping -c1 127.0.0.9
>>>>>> PING 127.0.0.9 (127.0.0.9) 56(84) bytes of data.
>>>>>> 64 bytes from 127.0.0.9: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.012 ms
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --- 127.0.0.9 ping statistics ---
>>>>>> 1 packets transmitted, 1 received, 0% packet loss, time 0ms
>>>>>> rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.012/0.012/0.012/0.000 ms
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This also used to work equivalently for IPv6 local loopback routes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> $ ip -6 route add local 2001:::/64 dev lo
>>>>>> $ ping6 -c1 2001::9
>>>>>> PING 2001::9(2001::9) 56 data bytes
>>>>>> 64 bytes from 2001::9: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.010 ms
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --- 2001::9 ping statistics ---
>>>>>> 1 packets transmitted, 1 received, 0% packet loss, time 0ms
>>>>>> rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.010/0.010/0.010/0.000 ms
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However with this patch, this is very broken:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> $ ip -6 route add local 2001::/64 dev lo
>>>>>> $ ping6 -c1 2001::9
>>>>>> PING 2001::9(2001::9) 56 data bytes
>>>>>> ping: sendmsg: Invalid argument
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --- 2001::9 ping statistics ---
>>>>>> 1 packets transmitted, 0 received, 100% packet loss, time 0ms
>>>>>
>>>>> Which kernel version are you using? Perhaps you miss another fix? It
>>>>> works
>>>>> for
>>>>> me. Also I cannot find this patch in net-next?
>>>>
>>>> It wasn't needed/applied as the route cache was removed.
>>>
>>> Do you mean the rt->n(eighbour) removal? There was no removal of a route
>>> cache
>>> in IPv6 land. The cache is merely in the routing table itself.
>>
>> Yes, my bad, sorry. s/route/neighour/. It was discussed on this thread:
>> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network/255318
>>
>> "Note also that YOSHIFUJI Hideaki's patches to remove the cached neighbour
>> entirely from ipv6 routes will have the same effect, so your patch won't
>> be needed."
>
> Ok, thanks!
>
> But it somehow managed to get into stable kernels, nor? Kernels after rt->n
> removal should not be affected. At least the example above works on my
> net-next kernel correctly.

Yes, it did, as a intermediate fix, let's say. As we wouldn't remove the cache 
for -stable tree, this patch seems reasonable to avoid creating a flood of 
non-wanted entries. Without it, when using TPROXY, it was creating neighbor 
entries for IP addresses that were behind a gateway.

In case it helps:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network/255234/focus=257293
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network/257433 (this thread, actually)

Thanks,
Marcelo

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html