| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <1413972774.2337.37.camel@localhost>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 12:12:54 +0200
From: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
To: Erik Kline <ek@...gle.com>
Cc: netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>,
Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 net-next] net: ipv6: Add a sysctl to make
optimistic addresses useful candidates
On Mi, 2014-10-22 at 14:25 +0900, Erik Kline wrote:
> Hello.
>
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 4:45 AM, Hannes Frederic Sowa
> <hannes@...essinduktion.org> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Di, 2014-10-21 at 13:05 +0900, Erik Kline wrote:
> >> Add a sysctl that causes an interface's optimistic addresses
> >> to be considered equivalent to other non-deprecated addresses
> >> for source address selection purposes. Preferred addresses
> >> will still take precedence over optimistic addresses, subject
> >> to other ranking in the source address selection algorithm.
> >>
> >> This is useful where different interfaces are connected to
> >> different networks from different ISPs (e.g., a cell network
> >> and a home wifi network).
> >>
> >> The current behaviour complies with RFC 3484/6724, and it
> >> makes sense if the host has only one interface, or has
> >> multiple interfaces on the same network (same or cooperating
> >> administrative domain(s), but not in the multiple distinct
> >> networks case.
> >>
> >> For example, if a mobile device has an IPv6 address on an LTE
> >> network and then connects to IPv6-enabled wifi, while the wifi
> >> IPv6 address is undergoing DAD, IPv6 connections will try use
> >> the wifi default route with the LTE IPv6 address, and will get
> >> stuck until they time out.
> >>
> >> Also, because optimistic addresses can actually be used, issue
> >> an RTM_NEWADDR as soon as DAD starts. If DAD fails an separate
> >> RTM_DELADDR will be sent.
> >>
> >> Also: add an entry in ip-sysctl.txt for optimistic_dad.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Erik Kline <ek@...gle.com>
> >> ---
> >> Documentation/networking/ip-sysctl.txt | 13 ++++++++++++
> >> include/linux/ipv6.h | 1 +
> >> include/uapi/linux/ipv6.h | 1 +
> >> net/ipv6/addrconf.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> >> 4 files changed, 49 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/Documentation/networking/ip-sysctl.txt b/Documentation/networking/ip-sysctl.txt
> >> index 0307e28..e03cf49 100644
> >> --- a/Documentation/networking/ip-sysctl.txt
> >> +++ b/Documentation/networking/ip-sysctl.txt
> >> @@ -1452,6 +1452,19 @@ suppress_frag_ndisc - INTEGER
> >> 1 - (default) discard fragmented neighbor discovery packets
> >> 0 - allow fragmented neighbor discovery packets
> >>
> >> +optimistic_dad - BOOLEAN
> >> + Whether to perform Optimistic Duplicate Address Detection (RFC 4429).
> >> + 0: disabled (default)
> >> + 1: enabled
> >> +
> >> +use_optimistic - BOOLEAN
> >> + If enabled, do not classify optimistic addresses as deprecated during
> >> + source address selection. Preferred addresses will still be chosen
> >> + before optimistic addresses, subject to other ranking in the source
> >> + address selection algorithm.
> >> + 0: disabled (default)
> >> + 1: enabled
> >> +
> >> icmp/*:
> >> ratelimit - INTEGER
> >> Limit the maximal rates for sending ICMPv6 packets.
> >> diff --git a/include/linux/ipv6.h b/include/linux/ipv6.h
> >> index ff56053..7121a2e 100644
> >> --- a/include/linux/ipv6.h
> >> +++ b/include/linux/ipv6.h
> >> @@ -42,6 +42,7 @@ struct ipv6_devconf {
> >> __s32 accept_ra_from_local;
> >> #ifdef CONFIG_IPV6_OPTIMISTIC_DAD
> >> __s32 optimistic_dad;
> >> + __s32 use_optimistic;
> >> #endif
> >> #ifdef CONFIG_IPV6_MROUTE
> >> __s32 mc_forwarding;
> >> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/ipv6.h b/include/uapi/linux/ipv6.h
> >> index efa2666..e863d08 100644
> >> --- a/include/uapi/linux/ipv6.h
> >> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/ipv6.h
> >> @@ -164,6 +164,7 @@ enum {
> >> DEVCONF_MLDV2_UNSOLICITED_REPORT_INTERVAL,
> >> DEVCONF_SUPPRESS_FRAG_NDISC,
> >> DEVCONF_ACCEPT_RA_FROM_LOCAL,
> >> + DEVCONF_USE_OPTIMISTIC,
> >> DEVCONF_MAX
> >> };
> >>
> >> diff --git a/net/ipv6/addrconf.c b/net/ipv6/addrconf.c
> >> index 725c763..c2fddb7 100644
> >> --- a/net/ipv6/addrconf.c
> >> +++ b/net/ipv6/addrconf.c
> >> @@ -1169,6 +1169,9 @@ enum {
> >> IPV6_SADDR_RULE_LABEL,
> >> IPV6_SADDR_RULE_PRIVACY,
> >> IPV6_SADDR_RULE_ORCHID,
> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_IPV6_OPTIMISTIC_DAD
> >> + IPV6_SADDR_RULE_NOT_OPTIMISTIC,
> >> +#endif
> >> IPV6_SADDR_RULE_PREFIX,
> >> IPV6_SADDR_RULE_MAX
> >> };
> >> @@ -1257,10 +1260,17 @@ static int ipv6_get_saddr_eval(struct net *net,
> >> score->scopedist = ret;
> >> break;
> >> case IPV6_SADDR_RULE_PREFERRED:
> >> + {
> >> /* Rule 3: Avoid deprecated and optimistic addresses */
> >> + u8 avoid = IFA_F_DEPRECATED;
> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_IPV6_OPTIMISTIC_DAD
> >> + if (!score->ifa->idev->cnf.use_optimistic)
> >> + avoid |= IFA_F_OPTIMISTIC;
> >> +#endif
> >> ret = ipv6_saddr_preferred(score->addr_type) ||
> >> - !(score->ifa->flags & (IFA_F_DEPRECATED|IFA_F_OPTIMISTIC));
> >> + !(score->ifa->flags & avoid);
> >> break;
> >> + }
> >> #ifdef CONFIG_IPV6_MIP6
> >> case IPV6_SADDR_RULE_HOA:
> >> {
> >> @@ -1299,6 +1309,14 @@ static int ipv6_get_saddr_eval(struct net *net,
> >> ret = !(ipv6_addr_orchid(&score->ifa->addr) ^
> >> ipv6_addr_orchid(dst->addr));
> >> break;
> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_IPV6_OPTIMISTIC_DAD
> >> + case IPV6_SADDR_RULE_NOT_OPTIMISTIC:
> >> + /* Optimistic addresses still have lower precedence than other
> >> + * preferred addresses.
> >> + */
> >> + ret = !(score->ifa->flags & IFA_F_OPTIMISTIC);
> >> + break;
> >> +#endif
> >
> > I wonder a bit why this rule is not directly ordered after
> > IPV6_SADDR_RULE_PREFERRED? This would e.g. matter for privacy addresses.
>
> Privacy addresses ("tempaddrs") that win in earlier checks are
> preferred before optimistic in this code (i.e. a tempaddr on the same
> outgoing interface is preferred before an optimistic address).
>
> Similarly, a non-tentative non-privacy address (same outgoing
> interface, same label, ...) will match before an optimistic address,
> but only until DAD completes and the address is no longer optimistic.
> I think this is in keeping with the spirit of the RFC 3484/6724 rules.
Oh yes, I see. I had the evaluation order messed up. ;)
So the question I should be asking would be. AFAIR optimistic addresses
should be handled like deprecated ones, so I am a bit concerned adding a
non-conditional rule before the RULE_PREFIX check.
Shouldn't we only break the tie *after* longest prefix match then? If
you do that before longest prefix match I would prefer ret being masked
by use_optimisitic flag.
> After there's an RFC 7217 implementation, EUI-64-based SLAAC could be
> disabled by folks.
Ack.
>
> >> case IPV6_SADDR_RULE_PREFIX:
> >> /* Rule 8: Use longest matching prefix */
> >> ret = ipv6_addr_diff(&score->ifa->addr, dst->addr);
> >> @@ -3222,8 +3240,13 @@ static void addrconf_dad_begin(struct inet6_ifaddr *ifp)
> >> * Optimistic nodes can start receiving
> >> * Frames right away
> >> */
> >> - if (ifp->flags & IFA_F_OPTIMISTIC)
> >> + if (ifp->flags & IFA_F_OPTIMISTIC) {
> >> ip6_ins_rt(ifp->rt);
> >> + /* Because optimistic nodes can receive frames, notify
> >> + * listeners. If DAD fails, RTM_DELADDR is sent.
> >> + */
> >> + ipv6_ifa_notify(RTM_NEWADDR, ifp);
> >> + }
> >
> > I wonder if we can now delete the ipv6_ifa_notify(RTM_NEWADDR, ifp) in
> > addrconf_dad_completed.
>
> I don't know what everyone's general preference would be, but mine
> would be to err on the side of notifying on state changes. It seems
> harmless to me to keep it in, and something in userspace might want to
> know if/when DAD completes.
Userspace expects to communicate with an address which gets announced
via RTM_NEWADDR, so I would make the RTM_NEWADDR notifications
conditional on use_optimistic flag in both, the completed and the
dad_begin function. This sounds like the best option to me, no?
Bye && 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists