[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <fd1c804d-3e44-0321-8a3e-67d6ff7357fa@cumulusnetworks.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 09:55:18 -0700
From: David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com>
To: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>,
"Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>,
Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
WireGuard mailing list <wireguard@...ts.zx2c4.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
YOSHIFUJI Hideaki <hideaki.yoshifuji@...aclelinux.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] ip6_output: ensure flow saddr actually belongs to
device
On 11/14/16 9:44 AM, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016, at 00:28, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
>> This puts the IPv6 routing functions in parity with the IPv4 routing
>> functions. Namely, we now check in v6 that if a flowi6 requests an
>> saddr, the returned dst actually corresponds to a net device that has
>> that saddr. This mirrors the v4 logic with __ip_dev_find in
>> __ip_route_output_key_hash. In the event that the returned dst is not
>> for a dst with a dev that has the saddr, we return -EINVAL, just like
>> v4; this makes it easy to use the same error handlers for both cases.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@...c4.com>
>> Cc: David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com>
>> ---
>> Changes from v2:
>> It turns out ipv6_chk_addr already has the device enumeration
>> logic that we need by simply passing NULL.
>>
>> net/ipv6/ip6_output.c | 4 ++++
>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/net/ipv6/ip6_output.c b/net/ipv6/ip6_output.c
>> index 6001e78..b3b5cb6 100644
>> --- a/net/ipv6/ip6_output.c
>> +++ b/net/ipv6/ip6_output.c
>> @@ -926,6 +926,10 @@ static int ip6_dst_lookup_tail(struct net *net,
>> const struct sock *sk,
>> int err;
>> int flags = 0;
>>
>> + if (!ipv6_addr_any(&fl6->saddr) &&
>> + !ipv6_chk_addr(net, &fl6->saddr, NULL, 1))
>> + return -EINVAL;
>
> Hmm, this check is too permissive, no?
>
> E.g. what happens if you move a link local address from one interface to
> another? In this case this code would still allow the saddr to be used.
This check -- like the ipv4 variant -- only verifies the saddr is locally assigned. If the address moves interfaces it should be fine.
>
> I just also quickly read up on the history (sorry was travelling last
> week) and wonder if you ever saw a user space facing bug or if this is
> basically some difference you saw while writing out of tree code?
I checked the userspace API this morning. bind and cmsg for example check that the address is valid with calls to ipv6_chk_addr.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists