netdev - Re: [RFC] net: ipv4 -- Introduce ifa limit per net

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:	Thu, 10 Mar 2016 14:55:43 -0500 (EST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	xiyou.wangcong@...il.com
Cc:	gorcunov@...il.com, alexei.starovoitov@...il.com,
	eric.dumazet@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, solar@...nwall.com,
	vvs@...tuozzo.com, avagin@...tuozzo.com, xemul@...tuozzo.com,
	vdavydov@...tuozzo.com, khorenko@...tuozzo.com,
	pablo@...filter.org, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] net: ipv4 -- Introduce ifa limit per net

From: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 11:02:28 -0800

> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 10:01 AM, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
>> I'm tempted to say that we should provide these notifier handlers with
>> the information they need, explicitly, to handle this case.
>>
>> Most intdev notifiers actually want to know the individual addresses
>> that get removed, one by one.  That's handled by the existing
>> NETDEV_DOWN event and the ifa we pass to that.
>>
>> But some, like this netfilter masq case, would be satisfied with a
>> single event that tells them the whole inetdev instance is being torn
>> down.  Which is the case we care about here.
>>
>> We currently don't use NETDEV_UNREGISTER for inetdev notifiers, so
>> maybe we could use that.
>>
>> And that is consistent with the core netdev notifier that triggers
>> this call chain in the first place.
>>
>> Roughly, something like this:
>>
>> diff --git a/net/ipv4/devinet.c b/net/ipv4/devinet.c
>> index 8c3df2c..6eee5cb 100644
>> --- a/net/ipv4/devinet.c
>> +++ b/net/ipv4/devinet.c
>> @@ -292,6 +292,11 @@ static void inetdev_destroy(struct in_device *in_dev)
>>
>>         in_dev->dead = 1;
>>
>> +       if (in_dev->ifa_list)
>> +               blocking_notifier_call_chain(&inetaddr_chain,
>> +                                            NETDEV_UNREGISTER,
>> +                                            in_dev->ifa_list);
>> +
>>         ip_mc_destroy_dev(in_dev);
> 
> 
> Hmm, but inetdev_destroy() is only called when NETDEV_UNREGISTER
> is happening and masq already registers a netdev notifier...

Indeed, good catch.  Therefore:

1) Keep the masq netdev notifier.  That will flush the conntrack table
   for the inetdev_destroy event.

2) Make the inetdev notifier only do something if inetdev->dead is
   false.  (ie. we are flushing an individual address)

And then we don't need the NETDEV_UNREGISTER thing at all:

diff --git a/net/ipv4/netfilter/nf_nat_masquerade_ipv4.c b/net/ipv4/netfilter/nf_nat_masquerade_ipv4.c
index c6eb421..f71841a 100644
--- a/net/ipv4/netfilter/nf_nat_masquerade_ipv4.c
+++ b/net/ipv4/netfilter/nf_nat_masquerade_ipv4.c
@@ -108,10 +108,20 @@ static int masq_inet_event(struct notifier_block *this,
 			   unsigned long event,
 			   void *ptr)
 {
-	struct net_device *dev = ((struct in_ifaddr *)ptr)->ifa_dev->dev;
 	struct netdev_notifier_info info;
+	struct in_ifaddr *ifa = ptr;
+	struct in_device *idev;
 
-	netdev_notifier_info_init(&info, dev);
+	/* The masq_dev_notifier will catch the case of the device going
+	 * down.  So if the inetdev is dead and being destroyed we have
+	 * no work to do.  Otherwise this is an individual address removal
+	 * and we have to perform the flush.
+	 */
+	idev = ifa->ifa_dev;
+	if (idev->dead)
+		return NOTIFY_DONE;
+
+	netdev_notifier_info_init(&info, idev->dev);
 	return masq_device_event(this, event, &info);
 }