netdev - Re: [PATCHv4 net-next] xfrm: Namespacify xfrm_policy_sk

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: <20140106103512.GR31491@secunet.com>
Date:	Mon, 6 Jan 2014 11:35:12 +0100
From:	Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
To:	Fan Du <fan.du@...driver.com>
Cc:	Timo Teras <timo.teras@....fi>,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv4 net-next] xfrm: Namespacify xfrm_policy_sk_bundles

On Wed, Dec 25, 2013 at 04:44:26PM +0800, Fan Du wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2013年12月25日 16:11, Timo Teras wrote:
> >On Wed, 25 Dec 2013 14:40:36 +0800
> >Fan Du<fan.du@...driver.com>  wrote:
> >
> >>>  ccing Timo
> >>>
> >>>  On 2013年12月24日 18:35, Steffen Klassert wrote:
> >>>>  >  On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 11:34:41AM +0800, Fan Du wrote:
> >>>>>  >>
> >>>>>  >>  Subject: [PATCHv4 net-next] xfrm: Namespacify
> >>>>>  >>  xfrm_policy_sk_bundles
> >>>>>  >>
> >>>>>  >>  xfrm_policy_sk_bundles, protected by
> >>>>>  >>  net->xfrm.xfrm_policy_sk_bundle_lock should be put into netns xfrm
> >>>>>  >>  structure, otherwise xfrm_policy_sk_bundles can be corrupted from
> >>>>>  >>  different net namespace.
> >>>>  >
> >>>>  >  I'm ok with this patch, but I wonder where we use these cached
> >>>>  >  socket bundles. After a quick look I see where we add and where we
> >>>>  >  delete them, but I can't see how we use these cached bundles.
> >>>
> >>>  Interesting
> >>>
> >>>  The per socket bundles is introduced by Timo in commit 80c802f3
> >>>  ("xfrm: cache bundles instead of policies for outgoing flows")
> >Those existed even before. I just did systematic transformation of the
> >caching code to work on bundle level instead of policy level.
> 
> Apologizes and thanks for your quick reply :)
> 
> >>>  But one fundamental question is why not use existing flow cache
> >>>  for per socket bundles as well? then no need to create such per
> >>>  sock xdst for every packet, and also share the same flow cache
> >>>  flush mechanism.
> >It was needed when the flow cache cached policies. They explicitly
> >needed to check the socket for per-socket policy. So it made no sense
> >to have anything socket related in the cache.
> 
> I understand your concern.
> 
> per sk bundles could be distinguished by putting per sk policy pointer into
> struct flow_cache_entry, and then compare sk policy between cached policy
> against with sk policy.

Most protocols cache the used routes at the sockets, so I'm not sure if
we really need to cache them in xfrm too.

Given the fact that we don't use these cached socket policy bundles,
it would be already an improvement if we would simply remove this caching.
All we are doing here is wasting memory.

> 
> And I also notice flow cache is global across different namespaces, but flow
> cache flush is doing a per-cpu(also global) operation, that's not fair for
> slim netns as compared with fat netns which floods flow cache. Maybe it's
> time to make flow cache also name space aware.

Yes, making the flow cache namespace aware would be a good thing.
--
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