[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191118224054.GB388551@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2019 19:40:54 -0300
From: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>
To: Aaron Conole <aconole@...hat.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Pravin B Shelar <pshelar@....org>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, dev@...nvswitch.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, paulb@...lanox.com,
Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 2/2] act_ct: support asymmetric conntrack
On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 04:21:39PM -0500, Aaron Conole wrote:
> Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com> writes:
>
> > On Fri, Nov 08, 2019 at 04:07:14PM -0500, Aaron Conole wrote:
> >> The act_ct TC module shares a common conntrack and NAT infrastructure
> >> exposed via netfilter. It's possible that a packet needs both SNAT and
> >> DNAT manipulation, due to e.g. tuple collision. Netfilter can support
> >> this because it runs through the NAT table twice - once on ingress and
> >> again after egress. The act_ct action doesn't have such capability.
> >>
> >> Like netfilter hook infrastructure, we should run through NAT twice to
> >> keep the symmetry.
> >>
> >> Fixes: b57dc7c13ea9 ("net/sched: Introduce action ct")
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Aaron Conole <aconole@...hat.com>
> >> ---
> >> net/sched/act_ct.c | 13 ++++++++++++-
> >> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/net/sched/act_ct.c b/net/sched/act_ct.c
> >> index fcc46025e790..f3232a00970f 100644
> >> --- a/net/sched/act_ct.c
> >> +++ b/net/sched/act_ct.c
> >> @@ -329,6 +329,7 @@ static int tcf_ct_act_nat(struct sk_buff *skb,
> >> bool commit)
> >> {
> >> #if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_NF_NAT)
> >> + int err;
> >> enum nf_nat_manip_type maniptype;
> >>
> >> if (!(ct_action & TCA_CT_ACT_NAT))
> >> @@ -359,7 +360,17 @@ static int tcf_ct_act_nat(struct sk_buff *skb,
> >> return NF_ACCEPT;
> >> }
> >>
> >> - return ct_nat_execute(skb, ct, ctinfo, range, maniptype);
> >> + err = ct_nat_execute(skb, ct, ctinfo, range, maniptype);
> >> + if (err == NF_ACCEPT &&
> >> + ct->status & IPS_SRC_NAT && ct->status & IPS_DST_NAT) {
> >> + if (maniptype == NF_NAT_MANIP_SRC)
> >> + maniptype = NF_NAT_MANIP_DST;
> >> + else
> >> + maniptype = NF_NAT_MANIP_SRC;
> >> +
> >> + err = ct_nat_execute(skb, ct, ctinfo, range, maniptype);
> >> + }
> >
> > I keep thinking about this and I'm not entirely convinced that this
> > shouldn't be simpler. More like:
> >
> > if (DNAT)
> > DNAT
> > if (SNAT)
> > SNAT
> >
> > So it always does DNAT before SNAT, similarly to what iptables would
> > do on PRE/POSTROUTING chains.
>
> I can rewrite the whole function, but I wanted to start with the smaller
> fix that worked. I also think it needs more testing then (since it's
> something of a rewrite of the function).
>
> I guess it's not too important - do you think it gives any readability
> to do it this way? If so, I can respin the patch changing it like you
> describe.
I didn't mean a rewrite, but just to never handle SNAT before DNAT. So
the fix here would be like:
- return ct_nat_execute(skb, ct, ctinfo, range, maniptype);
+ err = ct_nat_execute(skb, ct, ctinfo, range, maniptype);
+ if (err == NF_ACCEPT && maniptype == NF_NAT_MANIP_DST &&
+ ct->status & IPS_SRC_NAT && ct->status & IPS_DST_NAT) {
+ maniptype = NF_NAT_MANIP_SRC;
+ err = ct_nat_execute(skb, ct, ctinfo, range, maniptype);
+ }
+ return err;
> >> + return err;
> >> #else
> >> return NF_ACCEPT;
> >> #endif
> >> --
> >> 2.21.0
> >>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists