netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next,v2 2/2] net: sched: add em_ipt ematch for calling xtables matches

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20180130104808.7a0c2ac1@jimi>
Date:   Tue, 30 Jan 2018 10:48:08 +0200
From:   Eyal Birger <eyal.birger@...il.com>
To:     Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
Cc:     Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
        Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        shmulik@...anetworks.com, Eyal Birger <eyal@...anetworks.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next,v2 2/2] net: sched: add em_ipt ematch for
 calling xtables matches

On Sun, 28 Jan 2018 19:22:12 -0800
Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 11:57 AM, Eyal Birger <eyal.birger@...il.com>
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 8:50 PM, Pablo Neira Ayuso
> > <pablo@...filter.org> wrote:  
> >> Isn't there a way to reject the use of this from ->change()? ie.
> >> from control plane configuration.  
> >
> > I wasn't able to find a simple way of doing so:
> >
> > - AFAIU tc filters are detached from the qdiscs they operate on via
> > tcf_block instances
> >   that may be shared by different qdiscs. I was not able to be sure
> > that filters attached to ingress qdiscs via tcf_blocks at
> > configuration time cannot be later be shared
> >   with non ingress qdiscs. Nor was I able to find another classifier
> > making the ingress/egress
> >   distinction at configuration time.
> >
> > - ematches are not provided with 'ingress/egress' information at
> > 'change()' invocation, though
> >   of course the infrastructure could be extended to provide this,
> > given the distinction is available.
> >  
> 
> In the past you can check tp->q, but now we support shared tc filter
> block, so it is hard. I think your v1 is okay, which just silently
> passes the match on egress side. Or maybe we can just add a pr_info()
> unconditionally in em_ipt_change() saying only ingress is supported.

Thanks!

The motivation for allowing only ingress was to avoid skb modifications
on egress as when running the match on egress, skb->data must point to
the L3 header. Looking again at the calling flow e.g. from __dev_queue_xmit(),
I don't see a case where skb may be shared.

Similarly on ingress flow, sch_handle_ingress() modifies the skb, and
tc actions perform skb modification without share checking.

So as far as I can tell skb_pull() on the match is safe.
Is there a different code path I should be looking for?

If that is the case, perhaps the v1 approach supporting both directions
including skb_pull() can be resubmitted without the pr_notice once
net-next is open.

Eyal.