netdev - Re: [PATCH next 3/3] net: Use l3_dev instead of skb->dev for L3 processing

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: <CAF2d9jh7fbGgibzTgRfNppgVi2tm9j8p6OJHxiaR0ZmGzLe4dg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 8 Mar 2016 10:42:32 -0800
From:	Mahesh Bandewar <maheshb@...gle.com>
To:	Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
Cc:	Mahesh Bandewar <mahesh@...dewar.net>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Tim Hockin <thockin@...gle.com>,
	Alex Pollitt <alex.pollitt@...aswitch.com>,
	Matthew Dupre <matthew.dupre@...aswitch.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH next 3/3] net: Use l3_dev instead of skb->dev for L3 processing

On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 9:37 PM, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Mahesh Bandewar <maheshb@...gle.com> wrote:
>>
>> Unfortunately we don't have a way to switch to ns after L3 processing.
>
> I am totally aware of this, this is exactly why I said this might not be easy.
>
> The question is how hard it is to implement one? My gut feeling is we only
> need to change some data in skb, something similar to skb_scrub_packet().
> But I never even try.
>
>> So I would
>> argue it the other-way around. The way it is now; breaks the _isolation_ model.
>> If the default-ns is responsible for whole L3 (in this situation) and
>> it does pretty well
>> on egress but there is no way to do that in ingress path. IPtables is
>> not the only thing,
>> how about routing, how about IPsec? None of this will function well.
>> So we need to
>> have a generic solution to solve all these problems.
>
> I don't understand why you question me this, it is you who only cares
> about iptables from your cover letter for this patchset, not me.
>
calm down! I'm not questioning you or anyone. There is problem and I would
prefer to solve it properly without cooking-up some short-term hack. The problem
reported is about IPtable and when I looked at it, I felt that it's
just a matter of
time until someone tries / uses IPsec or some routing. So I created
this solution.
I did mention about *complete* L3 processing in the cover letter but
agree that I
emphasized only on IPtables which I can correct it in the next version.

> The more subsystems involves, the more struct net pointers you
> potentially need to touch, the less likely you can make it correct
> by just switching skb->dev.

Please drop that prejudice and read the patch-set carefully. I'm
neither changing
any *net* pointers nor changing the skb->dev pointers anywhere. All I'm saying
is dev->l3_dev is what we'll use for *all* L3 processing and no need to change
skb->dev or net-ns of any device(s) involved.