linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next 3/4] flow_dissector: extract more ICMP information

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: <CAGnkfhyEB0JU7LPZfYxHiKkryrkzoOs3Krumt1Lph+Q=qx1s8A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 25 Oct 2019 02:27:28 +0200
From:   Matteo Croce <mcroce@...hat.com>
To:     Simon Horman <simon.horman@...ronome.com>
Cc:     netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jay Vosburgh <j.vosburgh@...il.com>,
        Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...il.com>,
        Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Paul Blakey <paulb@...lanox.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/4] flow_dissector: extract more ICMP information

On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 7:55 PM Simon Horman <simon.horman@...ronome.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 12:53:37PM +0200, Matteo Croce wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 12:00 PM Simon Horman
> > <simon.horman@...ronome.com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 10:09:47PM +0200, Matteo Croce wrote:
> > > > +     switch (ih->type) {
> > > > +     case ICMP_ECHO:
> > > > +     case ICMP_ECHOREPLY:
> > > > +     case ICMP_TIMESTAMP:
> > > > +     case ICMP_TIMESTAMPREPLY:
> > > > +     case ICMPV6_ECHO_REQUEST:
> > > > +     case ICMPV6_ECHO_REPLY:
> > > > +             /* As we use 0 to signal that the Id field is not present,
> > > > +              * avoid confusion with packets without such field
> > > > +              */
> > > > +             key_icmp->id = ih->un.echo.id ? : 1;
> > >
> > > Its not obvious to me why the kernel should treat id-zero as a special
> > > value if it is not special on the wire.
> > >
> > > Perhaps a caller who needs to know if the id is present can
> > > check the ICMP type as this code does, say using a helper.
> > >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > The problem is that the 0-0 Type-Code pair identifies the echo replies.
> > So instead of adding a bool is_present value I hardcoded the info in
> > the ID field making it always non null, at the expense of a possible
> > collision, which is harmless.
>
> Sorry, I feel that I'm missing something here.
>
> My reading of the code above is that for the cased types above
> (echo, echo reply, ...) the id is present. Otherwise it is not.
> My idea would be to put a check for those types in a helper.
>

Something like icmp_has_id(), I like it.

> I do agree that the override you have used is harmless enough
> in the context of the only user of the id which appears in
> the following patch of this series.
>
>
> Some other things I noticed in this patch on a second pass:
>
> * I think you can remove the icmp field from struct flow_dissector_key_ports
>

You mean flow_dissector_key_icmp maybe?

> * I think that adding icmp to struct flow_keys should be accompanied by
>   adding ICMP to flow_keys_dissector_symmetric_keys. But I think this is
>   not desirable outside of the bonding use-case and rather
>   the bonding driver should define its own structures that
>   includes the keys it needs - basically copies of struct flow_keys
>   and flow_keys_dissector_symmetric_keys with some modifications.
>

Just flow_keys_dissector_symmetric_keys or flow_keys_dissector_keys too?
Anyway, it seems that the bonding uses the flow_dissector only when
using encap2+3 or encap3+4 hashing, which means decap some known
tunnels (mpls and gre and pppoe I think).
For the other modes it just uses iph_to_flow_copy_v{4,6}addrs() and
skb_flow_get_ports(), so maybe we can avoid copying that structure.

> * Modifying flow_keys_have_l4 affects the behaviour of
>   skb_get_hash_flowi6() but there is not a corresponding update
>   to flow_keys_have_l4(). I didn't look at all the other call sites
>   but it strikes me that this is a) a wide-spread behavioural change
>   and b) is perhaps not required for the bond-use case.

Right, no need to alter flow_keys_have_l4() at all.

I'll send a v2 with those suggestions.

Thanks,
--
Matteo Croce
per aspera ad upstream