netdev - Re: [PATCH net v2 2/2] ipv6: fix ECMP route replacement

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: <20150515085151.GA32190@unicorn.suse.cz>
Date:	Fri, 15 May 2015 10:51:52 +0200
From:	Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>
To:	Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>
Cc:	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
	Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>,
	roopa <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2 2/2] ipv6: fix ECMP route replacement

On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 11:49:07PM +0200, Michal Kubecek wrote:
> On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 08:58:59PM +0200, Nicolas Dichtel wrote:
> > Le 13/05/2015 21:59, Michal Kubecek a écrit :
> > >When replacing an IPv6 multipath route with "ip route replace", i.e.
> > >NLM_F_CREATE | NLM_F_REPLACE, fib6_add_rt2node() replaces only first
> > >matching route without fixing its siblings, resulting in corrupted
> > >siblings linked list; removing one of the siblings can then end in an
> > >infinite loop.
> > >
> > >Replacing the whole set of nexthops does IMHO make more sense than
> > >replacing a random one. We also need to remove the NLM_F_REPLACE flag
> > >after replacing old nexthops by first new so that each subsequent
> > >nexthop does not replace previous one.
> > >
> > >Fixes: 51ebd3181572 ("ipv6: add support of equal cost multipath (ECMP)")
> > >Signed-off-by: Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>
> > >---
> > >  net/ipv6/ip6_fib.c | 17 ++++++++++++++---
> > >  net/ipv6/route.c   |  8 +++++---
> > >  2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > >
> > >diff --git a/net/ipv6/ip6_fib.c b/net/ipv6/ip6_fib.c
> > >index 96dbffff5a24..abf4e4e5bdab 100644
> > >--- a/net/ipv6/ip6_fib.c
> > >+++ b/net/ipv6/ip6_fib.c
> > >@@ -815,6 +815,8 @@ add:
> > >  		}
> > >
> > >  	} else {
> > >+		struct rt6_info *next;
> > >+
> > >  		if (!found) {
> > >  			if (add)
> > >  				goto add;
> > >@@ -828,15 +830,24 @@ add:
> > >
> > >  		*ins = rt;
> > >  		rt->rt6i_node = fn;
> > >-		rt->dst.rt6_next = iter->dst.rt6_next;
> > >+
> > >+		/* skip potential siblings */
> > >+		next = iter->dst.rt6_next;
> > >+		while (next && next->rt6i_metric == rt->rt6i_metric)
> > >+			next = next->dst.rt6_next;
> > I wonder if we should not loop over the siblings list here
> > (rt->rt6i_siblings).  Only routes that match 'rt6_qualify_for_ecmp()'
> > are siblings.
> 
> Problem with looping over the siblings list is that then we would have
> to find each of them in the (unidirectional) list linked by dst.rt6_next
> to be able to delete them from this list.  Do we at least know that all
> routes in this list with matching metric and rt6_qualify_for_ecmp() are
> siblings? If so, we could still do the cleanup on one pass over the
> dst.rt6_next list.

Hm... it's still a bit more complicated. In the "replace" case, we break
the loop once we find any route with matching metric, i.e. we can find a
non-ECMP one even if there are some ECMP siblings farther in the chain.
As far as I can see, replacing such route would cause an inconsistency
as nsiblings would no longer match the number of ECMP-able routes in the
chain.

IMHO it's not completely clear what the "replace" semantics should be
for multiple routes (and, worse, for a mix of non-ECMP and ECMP ones).
One possible approach would be

  - when new route is ECMP-able, try to find an ECMP-able route and
    replace it with all its siblings
  - if there is none, fall back to replacing first matching non-ECMP
    route (or just add if creating is allowed)
  - when new route is not ECMP-able (can this really happen with
    NLM_F_REPLACE?), replace first matching non-ECMP or insert new one

But I still rather feel like replacing all existing matching routes
would better reflect what I expect "replace" to do.

                                                        Michal Kubecek

> > >+		rt->dst.rt6_next = next;
> > >+
> > >  		atomic_inc(&rt->rt6i_ref);
> > >  		inet6_rt_notify(RTM_NEWROUTE, rt, info);
> > >  		if (!(fn->fn_flags & RTN_RTINFO)) {
> > >  			info->nl_net->ipv6.rt6_stats->fib_route_nodes++;
> > >  			fn->fn_flags |= RTN_RTINFO;
> > >  		}
> > >-		fib6_purge_rt(iter, fn, info->nl_net);
> > >-		rt6_release(iter);
> > >+		while (iter != next) {
> > >+			fib6_purge_rt(iter, fn, info->nl_net);
> > >+			rt6_release(iter);
> > >+			iter = iter->dst.rt6_next;
> > >+		}
> > Same here.
--
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