netdev - Re: [RFC] net: ipv4 -- Introduce ifa limit per net

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, 10 Mar 2016 16:05:21 -0500 (EST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	gorcunov@...il.com
Cc:	xiyou.wangcong@...il.com, alexei.starovoitov@...il.com,
	eric.dumazet@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, solar@...nwall.com,
	vvs@...tuozzo.com, avagin@...tuozzo.com, xemul@...tuozzo.com,
	vdavydov@...tuozzo.com, khorenko@...tuozzo.com,
	pablo@...filter.org, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] net: ipv4 -- Introduce ifa limit per net

From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 23:13:51 +0300

> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 03:03:11PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
>> Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 23:01:34 +0300
>> 
>> > On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 02:55:43PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
>> >> > 
>> >> > Hmm, but inetdev_destroy() is only called when NETDEV_UNREGISTER
>> >> > is happening and masq already registers a netdev notifier...
>> >> 
>> >> Indeed, good catch.  Therefore:
>> >> 
>> >> 1) Keep the masq netdev notifier.  That will flush the conntrack table
>> >>    for the inetdev_destroy event.
>> >> 
>> >> 2) Make the inetdev notifier only do something if inetdev->dead is
>> >>    false.  (ie. we are flushing an individual address)
>> >> 
>> >> And then we don't need the NETDEV_UNREGISTER thing at all:
>> >> 
>> >> diff --git a/net/ipv4/netfilter/nf_nat_masquerade_ipv4.c b/net/ipv4/netfilter/nf_nat_masquerade_ipv4.c
>> >> index c6eb421..f71841a 100644
>> >> --- a/net/ipv4/netfilter/nf_nat_masquerade_ipv4.c
>> >> +++ b/net/ipv4/netfilter/nf_nat_masquerade_ipv4.c
>> >> @@ -108,10 +108,20 @@ static int masq_inet_event(struct notifier_block *this,
>> >>  			   unsigned long event,
>> >>  			   void *ptr)
>> >>  {
>> >> -	struct net_device *dev = ((struct in_ifaddr *)ptr)->ifa_dev->dev;
>> >>  	struct netdev_notifier_info info;
>> >> +	struct in_ifaddr *ifa = ptr;
>> >> +	struct in_device *idev;
>> >>  
>> >> -	netdev_notifier_info_init(&info, dev);
>> >> +	/* The masq_dev_notifier will catch the case of the device going
>> >> +	 * down.  So if the inetdev is dead and being destroyed we have
>> >> +	 * no work to do.  Otherwise this is an individual address removal
>> >> +	 * and we have to perform the flush.
>> >> +	 */
>> >> +	idev = ifa->ifa_dev;
>> >> +	if (idev->dead)
>> >> +		return NOTIFY_DONE;
>> >> +
>> >> +	netdev_notifier_info_init(&info, idev->dev);
>> >>  	return masq_device_event(this, event, &info);
>> >>  }
>> > 
>> > Guys, I'm lost. Currently masq_device_event calls for conntrack
>> > cleanup with device index, so that once device is going down, the
>> > appropriate conntracks gonna be dropped off. Now if device is dead
>> > nobody will cleanup the conntracks?
>> 
>> Both notifiers are run in the inetdev_destroy() case.
>> 
>> Maybe that's what you are missing.
> 
> No :) Look, here is what I mean. Previously with your two patches
> we've been calling nf-cleanup for every address, so we had to make
> code call for cleanup for one time only. Now with the patch above
> the code flow is the following
> 
> inetdev_destroy
> 	in_dev->dead = 1;
> 	...
> 	inet_del_ifa
> 		...
> 		blocking_notifier_call_chain(&inetaddr_chain, NETDEV_DOWN, ifa1);
> 		...
> 		masq_inet_event
> 		 ...
> 		  masq_device_event
> 			if (idev->dead)
> 				return NOTIFY_DONE;
> 
> and nobody calls for nf_ct_iterate_cleanup, no?

Oh yes they do, from masq's non-inet notifier.  masq registers two
notifiers, one for generic netdev and one for inetdev.