netdev - Re: [PATCH nf-next 0/9] netfilter: remove per-netns conntrack tables, part 1

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 5 May 2016 18:22:29 -0400
From:	Brian Haley <brian.haley@....com>
To:	Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
Cc:	netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH nf-next 0/9] netfilter: remove per-netns conntrack tables,
 part 1

On 05/05/2016 04:54 PM, Florian Westphal wrote:
> Brian Haley <brian.haley@....com> wrote:
>> Openstack networking creates virtual routers using namespaces for isolation
>> between users.  VETH pairs are used to connect the interfaces on these
>> routers to different networks, whether they are internal (private) or
>> external (public).  In most cases NAT is done inside the namespace as
>> packets move between the networks.
>>
>> I've seen cases where certain users are attacked, where the CT table is
>> filled such that we start seeing "nf_conntrack: table full, dropping packet"
>> messages (as expected).  But other users continue to function normally,
>> unaffected.  Is this still the case - each netns has some limit it can't
>> exceed?
>
> The limit is global, the accounting per namespace.

So this is a change from existing.

> If the bucket count (net.netfilter.nf_conntrack_buckets) is high enough
> to accomodate the expected load and noone can create arbitrary number of
> net namespaces things are fine.

In my case we can't control the number of namespaces, each user will get one as 
a virtual router is created.  We could change how we size things, but that 
doesn't stop one user from consuming larger than their 1/N share of entries. 
Typically we just increase the number of systems hosting these "routers" when we 
hit a limit, which decreases the netns count per node.

> I haven't changed the way this works yet because I did not have a better
> idea so far.

Creating a per-netns maximum seems doable, but maybe not practical from the 
accounting side of things.  Can't think of anything else at the moment.

-Brian