netdev - Re: [PATCHv2 net-next 2/2] selftests: add a selftest for directed broadcast forwarding

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: <df1c3df6-bd68-8a97-df36-ab3fa14d2bcb@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 5 Jul 2018 07:18:46 -0600
From:   David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
To:     Xin Long <lucien.xin@...il.com>
Cc:     network dev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, davem <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Davide Caratti <dcaratti@...hat.com>,
        Ido Schimmel <idosch@...sch.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 net-next 2/2] selftests: add a selftest for directed
 broadcast forwarding

On 7/5/18 1:57 AM, Xin Long wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 2:36 AM, David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com> wrote:
>> On 7/4/18 11:56 AM, Xin Long wrote:
>>
>>>> your commands are not a proper test. The test should succeed and fail
>>>> based on the routing lookup, not iptables rules.
>>> A proper test can be done easily with netns, as vrf can't isolate much.
>>> I don't want to bother forwarding/ directory with netns, so I will probably
>>> just drop this selftest, and let the feature patch go first.
>>>
>>
>> BTW, VRF isolates at the routing layer and this is a routing change. We
>> need to understand why it does not work with VRF. Perhaps another tweak
>> is needed for VRF.
> One problem was that the peer may not use the address on the dev
> that echo_request comes from as the src IP of echo_reply when the
> echo_request's dst IP is broadcast, but try to get another one by
> looking up a route without ".flowi4_oif" set. See:
> 
> icmp_reply()->fib_compute_spec_dst():
>                 struct flowi4 fl4 = {
>                         .flowi4_iif = LOOPBACK_IFINDEX,
>                         .daddr = ip_hdr(skb)->saddr,
>                         .flowi4_tos = RT_TOS(ip_hdr(skb)->tos),
>                         .flowi4_scope = scope,
>                         .flowi4_mark = IN_DEV_SRC_VMARK(in_dev) ? skb->mark : 0,
>                 };
>                 if (!fib_lookup(net, &fl4, &res, 0))
>                         return FIB_RES_PREFSRC(net, res);
> 
> 
> Without ".flowi4_oif" set, it won't match the vrf route. That's why
> I had to make h2 NOT into a vrf so that h1 can get the echo_reply.
> But it can't tell if this echo_reply is from h2 or r1, as r1's echo_reply
> will also use the same src IP which is actually got from main route
> space as  ".flowi4_oif" is not set.
> (hope I this description is clear to you) :)
> 
> So i'm not sure if we can do any tweak for VRF.
> 

Try this:

diff --git a/net/ipv4/fib_frontend.c b/net/ipv4/fib_frontend.c
index b21833651394..e46cdd310e5f 100644
--- a/net/ipv4/fib_frontend.c
+++ b/net/ipv4/fib_frontend.c
@@ -300,6 +300,7 @@ __be32 fib_compute_spec_dst(struct sk_buff *skb)
        if (!ipv4_is_zeronet(ip_hdr(skb)->saddr)) {
                struct flowi4 fl4 = {
                        .flowi4_iif = LOOPBACK_IFINDEX,
+                       .flowi4_oif = l3mdev_master_ifindex_rcu(dev),
                        .daddr = ip_hdr(skb)->saddr,
                        .flowi4_tos = RT_TOS(ip_hdr(skb)->tos),
                        .flowi4_scope = scope,