netdev - Re: [PATCH net v3] ipv6: fix multipath route replace error recovery

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:	Mon, 07 Sep 2015 17:14:15 -0700
From:	roopa <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>
To:	nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com
CC:	davem@...emloft.net, mkubecek@...e.cz, Mazziesaccount@...il.com,
	hannes@...essinduktion.org, kuznet@....inr.ac.ru,
	jmorris@...ei.org, yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v3] ipv6: fix multipath route replace error recovery

On 9/7/15, 5:37 AM, Nicolas Dichtel wrote:
> Le 06/09/2015 22:46, Roopa Prabhu a écrit :
>> From: Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>
> I've sent you some comments about the v2, so please keep me in CC for 
> the next
> versions.
>
>>
>> Problem:
>> The ecmp route replace support for ipv6 in the kernel, deletes the
>> existing ecmp route too early, ie when it installs the first nexthop.
>> If there is an error in installing the subsequent nexthops, its too late
>> to recover the already deleted existing route
>>
>> This patch fixes the problem with the following:
> It does not really 'fix' the problem, it only reduces the probability 
> to have
> an error. This is really different. The status is much better after 
> this patch,
> but it could be good to reword a bit the commitlog to reflect that.

sure.
>
>> a) Changes the existing multipath route add code to a two stage process:
>>    build rt6_infos + insert them
>>     ip6_route_add rt6_info creation code is moved into
>>     ip6_route_info_create.
>> b) This ensures that all errors are caught during building rt6_infos
>>    and we fail early
>> c) Separates multipath add and del code. Because add needs the special
>>    two stage mode in a) and delete essentially does not care.
>> d) In any event if the code fails during inserting a route again, a
>>    warning is printed (This should be unlikely)
>>
>> Before the patch:
>> $ip -6 route show
>> 3000:1000:1000:1000::2 via fe80::202:ff:fe00:b dev swp49s0 metric 1024
>> 3000:1000:1000:1000::2 via fe80::202:ff:fe00:d dev swp49s1 metric 1024
>> 3000:1000:1000:1000::2 via fe80::202:ff:fe00:f dev swp49s2 metric 1024
>>
>> /* Try replacing the route with a duplicate nexthop */
>> $ip -6 route change 3000:1000:1000:1000::2/128 nexthop via
>> fe80::202:ff:fe00:b dev swp49s0 nexthop via fe80::202:ff:fe00:d dev
>> swp49s1 nexthop via fe80::202:ff:fe00:d dev swp49s1
>> RTNETLINK answers: File exists
>>
>> $ip -6 route show
>> /* previously added ecmp route 3000:1000:1000:1000::2 dissappears from
>>   * kernel */
>>
>> After the patch:
>> $ip -6 route show
>> 3000:1000:1000:1000::2 via fe80::202:ff:fe00:b dev swp49s0 metric 1024
>> 3000:1000:1000:1000::2 via fe80::202:ff:fe00:d dev swp49s1 metric 1024
>> 3000:1000:1000:1000::2 via fe80::202:ff:fe00:f dev swp49s2 metric 1024
>>
>> /* Try replacing the route with a duplicate nexthop */
>> $ip -6 route change 3000:1000:1000:1000::2/128 nexthop via
>> fe80::202:ff:fe00:b dev swp49s0 nexthop via fe80::202:ff:fe00:d dev
>> swp49s1 nexthop via fe80::202:ff:fe00:d dev swp49s1
>> RTNETLINK answers: File exists
>>
>> $ip -6 route show
>> 3000:1000:1000:1000::2 via fe80::202:ff:fe00:b dev swp49s0 metric 1024
>> 3000:1000:1000:1000::2 via fe80::202:ff:fe00:d dev swp49s1 metric 1024
>> 3000:1000:1000:1000::2 via fe80::202:ff:fe00:f dev swp49s2 metric 1024
>>
>> Fixes: 27596472473a ("ipv6: fix ECMP route replacement")
> As said in the v2 thread, I still don't agree with this tag.
>
> [snip]
>> +static void ip6_print_replace_route_err(struct list_head *rt6_nh_list)
>> +{
>> +    struct rt6_nh *nh;
>> +
>> +    list_for_each_entry(nh, rt6_nh_list, next) {
>> +        pr_warn("IPV6: replace premature del %pI6 nexthop %pI6 ifi 
>> %d\n",
> I don't think that a user (who didn't read the code) can understand this
> sentence. Another suggestion:
> "ECMPv6: route replacement failed (check the consistency of the 
> installed route)". Not sure that the nexthops should be listed after.
sure, i don't have a preference. I will resubmit if we converge on the 
commit message.

--
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