netdev - Re: netlink NETLINK_ROUTE failure & Can the kernel really handle IPv6 properly

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]

Date:	Fri, 3 Oct 2014 09:59:39 +0200
From:	Ulf Samuelsson <ulf.samuelsson@...csson.com>
To:	Dan Williams <dcbw@...hat.com>, Ulf samuelsson <netdev@...gii.com>
CC:	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>,
	Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: netlink NETLINK_ROUTE  failure & Can the kernel really handle
 IPv6 properly


On 10/02/2014 05:44 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-10-02 at 14:38 +0200, Ulf samuelsson wrote:
>> This is the significant code, and it is wrong.
>>
>> static struct notifier_block my_ipv6_address_notifier =
>>   {
>>     my_ipv6_address_notifier_cb,
>>     NULL,
>>     0
>>   };
>>
>> register_inet6addr_notifier (&my_ipv6_address_notifier );
>>
>> int
>> my_ipv6_address_notifier_cb (struct notifier_block *self,
>>                                  unsigned long event, void *val)
>> {
>>   struct inet6_ifaddr *ifaddr = (struct inet6_ifaddr *)val;
>>
>>
>>   /* We are only interested in address add/delete events */
>>   /* IPv6 address add comes as NETDEV_UP and delete comes as
>>    * NETDEV_DOWN
>>    */
>>   if ((event != NETDEV_UP) && (event != NETDEV_DOWN))
>>     return ret;
>>
>>   if (ifaddr == NULL)
>>     return ret;
>>   /* Now that we are sure that it is a IPv6 address being added deleted,
>>    * verify that it is a link local address.
>>    */
>>   if (!IPV6_IS_ADDR_LINKLOCAL (&ifaddr->addr))
>>     {
>>       return ret;
>>     }
>>   ...
>>   send_message_to_app(LINK_LOCAL_UP, ip);
>>   ...
>>   return ret;
>> }
>>
>>
>> Application tries to send message to "ip" and fails, because the link-local adress is still
>> in "tentative state"
> It seems to me that a better architecture would be to have the app
> itself listen for RTM_NEWADDR netlink event and look for lack of
> IFA_F_TENTATIVE in the IFA_FLAGS attribute.  Using a kernel module to do
> the same thing seems pretty wrong.
>
> Dan

OK, got more information. This is part of a fairly large and complex system.

The kernel module is a control module which collects information
both from the kernel and from H/W, and talks to a userspace interface 
manager.

There is a proprietary management application which is used to configure 
the stack.
This talks to the interface manager to handle different operations for IPv6.

The kernel module needs to know when interfaces are ready to use,
I.E: know when it exits "tentative" mode to do its job properly,
so the kernel module has to listen for RTM_NEWADDR.

In a simpler system, your approach would be OK.

Best Regards,
Ulf Samuelsson


>> Best Regards
>> Ulf Samuelsson
>> ulf@...gii.com
>> +46  (722) 427 437
>>
>>
>>> 1 okt 2014 kl. 23:30 skrev Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>:
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>>> On Wed, Oct 1, 2014, at 22:28, Ulf Samuelsson wrote:
>>>> BTW, the problem I am trying to solve is how to connect to an I/F with
>>>> an IPv6 link-local address.
>>>>
>>>> An existing kernel module waits for a NETDEV_UP event, and then tries to
>>>> communicate
>>>> with the link-local address.
>>>>
>>>> This will fail, because (according to a colleague) the I/F enters a
>>>> "tentative" state,
>>>> where it is trying to decide if it is unique or not.
>>>> It will remain in that state for 1-2 seconds, and only afterwards is the
>>>> link-local address
>>>> available for normal use.
>>>>
>>>> The guys writing the module, claim that the kernel is using NETDEV_UP.
>>>> There is very little code in the kernel using NETLINK_ROUTE, even in
>>>> latest stable.
>>>> It is using NETDEV_UP.
>>>>
>>>> If my colleague is right, the kernel really cannot handle IPv6
>>>> link-local addresses properly.
>>> Sorry, I cannot really follow you, can you send example code or be a bit
>>> more precise?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Hannes
>>> --
>>> 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
>> --
>> 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
>
> --
> 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

--
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