netdev - Re: [PATCH net 0/3] ipv6: use rt6i

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: <alpine.LFD.2.03.1310212237001.1785@ssi.bg>
Date:	Mon, 21 Oct 2013 23:02:57 +0300 (EEST)
From:	Julian Anastasov <ja@....bg>
To:	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, lvs-devel@...r.kernel.org,
	Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 0/3] ipv6: use rt6i_gateway as nexthop


	Hello,

On Mon, 21 Oct 2013, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:

> Not related to the patch:
> 
> That reminds me that Yoshifuji had the idea to cache the results for
> ipv6_addr_type in IP6CB to avoid calling this function over and over again.
> Maybe we can do the same for rt6_infos to save some cycles here and there.

	Yes, ipv6_addr_type has little price. May be only
DNAT and IPSec can complicate such caching.

> Also, what do you think about this site:
> 
> net/ipv6/ip6_output.c:
>     411 
>     412                 rt = (struct rt6_info *) dst;
>     413                 if (rt->rt6i_flags & RTF_GATEWAY)
>     414                         target = &rt->rt6i_gateway;
>     415                 else
>     416                         target = &hdr->daddr;
>     417 
> 
> Our provided skb_dst should come from ip6_route_input, thus ip6_pol_route. So
> I assume we have rt6i_gateway == hdr->daddr there, too. It is a bit more
> complicated because of possible routing extension headers. Maybe you already
> looked at this already?

	Yes, I checked every site that uses rt6i_gateway but
not with the perspective to use rt6_nexthop(). It seems
this is a rt6_nexthop() candidate.

> I just found it while searching which other code paths do emit packets
> while xt_TEE is processing (generation of redirects) and could also lead
> to stack exhaustion. But the path in ip6_forward seems fine.

	Yes. I found only one place more dangerous:
fib6_add_rt2node(). But I think its checks are still valid.

Regards

--
Julian Anastasov <ja@....bg>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html