netdev - Re: Network namespace bugs in L2TP

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 20 Dec 2012 13:52:54 +0000
From:	Tom Parkin <tparkin@...alix.com>
To:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Network namespace bugs in L2TP

Hi Eric,

On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:31:12AM -0800, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Tom Parkin <tparkin@...alix.com> writes:
> 
> > On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 11:44:36AM -0800, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >> Tom Parkin <tparkin@...alix.com> writes:
> > I think that raises a question in the case of the L2TP tunnel sockets,
> > though.  Currently l2tp_tunnel_sock_create uses the namespace of the
> > current process for the socket.  The alternative is to pass in the
> > desired namespace from l2tp_tunnel_create -- and this makes sense, I
> > think.
> >
> > However, when l2tp_tunnel_create is called from the netlink code, the
> > namespace passed is that of the netlink socket.  At the risk of sounding
> > silly, what's the benefit of using the netlink socket namespace over the
> > process namespace in this case?
> 
> Using the netlink socket namespace ensure that if the netlink socket is
> passed between processes the semantics of sending messages down the
> netlink socket don't change.
> 
> There is another thread on netdev discussing another variant of this
> right now.  For some cases it is just a waste of resources to have one
> copy of a daemon per network namespace.  In which case a controlling
> daemon will open one netlink socket per network namespace and send
> commands down the appropriate socket for the network namespace the
> daemon wishes to control.

Yes, I saw that other thread.  Thanks for the clarification on this
point.

> > But that doesn't seem too unreasonable.  A user would have to take
> > explicit action to create an L2TP tunnel socket, and it might seem
> > reasonable for that socket to keep the namespace alive until the user
> > explicitly tears it down again.
> 
> Sending a netlink message to tear down the socket is not unreasonable.
> 
> Having a reference counting loop such that it is possible to close all
> other sockets and all other references to a network namespace and not
> have the network namespace go away because the L2TP tunnel socket holds
> a reference to the unreachable and unuusable network namespace is
> unreasonable.
> 
> We handle this with arp and icmp control sockets by not creating a
> reference count.  And having a pernet cleanup routing clean up those
> sockets.  Assuming I am right about the reference counting loop being
> possible this is something to look at.

Yep, OK.  I hadn't appreciated the namespace could become inaccessible!

I've done some digging and I believe there is an issue with the
reference counting for the unmanaged tunnel sockets -- certainly I am
able to leak netns resources here.

I've been working on a patchset which I hope will address these issues
in l2tp_core.  I'm stress testing it now and hope to post to netdev
soon for review.

Thanks again for your help.

Tom
-- 
Tom Parkin
Katalix Systems Ltd
http://www.katalix.com
Catalysts for your Embedded Linux software development

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (491 bytes)