netdev - Re: [net v1] fib_rules: interface group matching

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: <e8df55df-c22f-19a3-fabc-5fb592433706@cumulusnetworks.com>
Date:   Wed, 14 Sep 2016 08:39:15 -0600
From:   David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com>
To:     Vincent Bernat <vincent@...nat.im>
Cc:     "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>,
        Wilson Kok <wkok@...ulusnetworks.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [net v1] fib_rules: interface group matching

On 9/14/16 8:25 AM, Vincent Bernat wrote:
>  ❦ 14 septembre 2016 16:15 CEST, David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com> :
> 
>>> When a user wants to assign a routing table to a group of incoming
>>> interfaces, the current solutions are:
>>>
>>>  - one IP rule for each interface (scalability problems)
>>>  - use of fwmark and devgroup matcher (don't work with internal route
>>>    lookups, used for example by RPF)
>>>  - use of VRF devices (more complex)
>>
>> Why do you believe that? A VRF is a formalized grouping of interfaces
>> that includes an API for locally generated traffic to specify which
>> VRF/group to use. And, with the l3mdev rule you only need 1 rule for
>> all VRFs regardless of the number which is the best solution to the
>> scalability problem of adding rules per device/group/VRF.
>>
>> What use case are trying to solve?
> 
> Local processes have to be made aware of the VRF by binding to the
> pseudo-device. Some processes may be tricked by LD_PRELOAD but some
> won't (like stuff written in Go). Maybe I should just find a better way
> to bind a process to a VRF without its cooperation.
> 

What API are you using for interface groups? How does an app tell the kernel to use interface group 1 versus group 2?


LD_PRELOAD and overloading socket is an ad-hoc hack at best with many holes - as you have found.

We (Cumulus Linux) are using this cgroups patch:
   http://www.mail-archive.com/netdev@vger.kernel.org/msg93408.html

I want something formal like the cgroups patch or even the first idea of adding a default sk_bound_dev_if to the task struct:
    https://github.com/dsahern/linux/commit/b3e5ccc291505c8a503edb20ea2c2b5e86bed96f

Parent-to-child inheritance of the setting is a requirement as is the setting getting applied to all IPv4/v6 sockets without action by the process itself.

Still have some work to do to get a solution into the kernel.