netdev - Re: [RFC net-next 3/6] net: Introduce VRF device driver

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: <559F3079.1040203@cumulusnetworks.com>
Date:	Thu, 09 Jul 2015 20:39:53 -0600
From:	David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com>
To:	Sowmini Varadhan <sowmini05@...il.com>
CC:	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Shrijeet Mukherjee <shm@...ulusnetworks.com>,
	Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>,
	Andy Gospodarek <gospo@...ulusnetworks.com>,
	jtoppins@...ulusnetworks.com, nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com,
	ddutt@...ulusnetworks.com,
	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>,
	Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>,
	Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
	hadi@...atatu.com, "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next 3/6] net: Introduce VRF device driver - v2

On 7/9/15 11:28 AM, Sowmini Varadhan wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 7:19 PM, David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com> wrote:
>
>> On the to-do list to use cmsg to specify a VRF for outbound packets using
>> non-connected sockets. I do not believe it is going to work, but need to
>> look into it.
>>
>>> What about setting ipsec policy for interfaces in the vrf?
>
>  From a purely parochial standpoint, how would rds sockets work in this model?
> Would the tcp encaps happen before or after the the vrf "driver" output?
> Same problem for NFS.

If I set the VRF context (ie., set the SO_BINDTODEVICE for all sockets) 
of any RDS, NFS or any other socket app it runs in that VRF context and 
works just fine.

>
>  From a non-parochial standpoint. There are a *lot* of routing apps that actually
> need more visibility into many details about the "slave" interface: e.g., OSPF,
> ARP snoop, IPSLA.. the list is pretty long.
>
> I think it's a bad idea to use a "driver" to represent a table lookup. Too many
> hacks will become necessary.

Most of the changes needed to the networking stack are to address which 
table is used for FIB lookups. The stack has a strong preference to the 
local and main tables. I have a new patch set which better explains 
patch 4 in this version. I'll send it out in the next few days, but you 
can get a preview here:

   https://github.com/dsahern/linux.git, vrf-dev-4.1-v2 branch

David

--
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