linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] net: dev_forward_skb(): Scrub packet's per-netns info only when crossing netns

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]

Message-ID: <20180315175444.02d70f23@halley>
Date:   Thu, 15 Mar 2018 17:54:44 +0200
From:   Shmulik Ladkani <shmulik.ladkani@...il.com>
To:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Cc:     Liran Alon <liran.alon@...cle.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        idan.brown@...cle.com, Yuval Shaia <yuval.shaia@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: dev_forward_skb(): Scrub packet's per-netns info
 only when crossing netns

On Thu, 15 Mar 2018 16:13:39 +0100 Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net> wrote:
> On 03/15/2018 01:50 PM, Shmulik Ladkani wrote:
> > 
> > It would be beneficial to have the mark preserved when skb is injected
> > to the slave device's rx path (especially when it's on the same netns).  
> 
> Right, I think also here the easiest would be to have a BPF_F_PRESERVE_MARK
> flag to opt-in in general case (xnet/non-xnet)

Sounds okay to me.

> But lets presume for a sec you would _not_ scrub it, then how are users
> supposed to make use of this? The feature/bug may not be critical enough
> (well, otherwise it wouldn't have been like this for long time) for stable,
> so to write an app relying on it the behavior will change from kernel A to
> kernel B, where you need to end up having a full blown veth run-time test
> in order to figure it out before you can use it, not really useful either.

Let's assume BPF_F_PRESERVE_MARK is a feature then, which is available only
in new kernels.
As said, this flag will not be honored by older kernels.

But your "run-time test" argument is true for every new flag-bit
introduced to bpf functions, for example:
 BPF_F_SEQ_NUMBER was added after other skb_set_tunnel_key flags,
 Same for BPF_F_INVALIDATE_HASH (skb_store_bytes), BPF_F_MARK_ENFORCE
 (l4_csum_replace) and others.

With every flag addition, the flag mask validation in the corresponding
bpf function has been relaxed to support it.

Why is BPF_F_PRESERVE_MARK any different from any previous flag addition?

Thanks,
Shmulik