netdev - Re: [PATCH net] ipv6: no need to return rt->dst.error if it is not null entry.

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:   Tue, 25 Jul 2017 08:08:49 +0800
From:   Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com>
To:     Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
Cc:     network dev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] ipv6: no need to return rt->dst.error if it is not
 null entry.

On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 12:57:43PM -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 8:09 PM, Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com> wrote:
> > Do we still need this net->ipv6.ip6_null_entry check? How about remove all
> > the checks?
> 
> I believe you only need to check for rt->dst.error, no need to check against
> NULL or ip6_null_entry.
> 
> Take a look at other ip6_route_lookup() callers.

Yes, I saw it. That why I send v2 patch to check both rt->dst.error and
ip6_null_entry.

The question is the other two caller are rpfilter_lookup_reverse6() and
nft_fib6_eval(). From the code it looks these two caller only care about
device match.

         if (rt->rt6i_idev->dev == dev || (flags & XT_RPFILTER_LOOSE))
                 ret = true;

And the device would be lo if it is ip6_null_entry. So they just discard it.
I'm not familiar with netfilter, Please correct me if I make any mistake.

But what we want in inet6_rtm_getroute() and rt6_dump_route() is to
get/dump the route info. So we should get the info even it's unreachable or
prohibit.

That's why I think we should remove both rt->dst.error and ip6_null_entry
check in inet6_rtm_getroute(). And even further, remove the ip6_null_entry
check in rt6_dump_route().

What do you think?

Thanks
Hangbin