netdev - Re: [RFC bpf-next 0/7] Programming socket lookup with BPF

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: <CAOftzPj6NWyWnz4JL-mXBaQUKAvQDtKJTrjZmrN4W5rqoy-W0A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 20 Jun 2019 15:20:41 -0700
From:   Joe Stringer <joe@...d.net.nz>
To:     Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@...udflare.com>
Cc:     Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        bpf@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...udflare.com
Subject: Re: [RFC bpf-next 0/7] Programming socket lookup with BPF

On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 2:14 AM Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@...udflare.com> wrote:
>
> Hey Florian,
>
> Thanks for taking a look at it.
>
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 03:52 PM CEST, Florian Westphal wrote:
> > Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@...udflare.com> wrote:
> >>  - XDP programs using bpf_sk_lookup helpers, like load balancers, can't
> >>    find the listening socket to check for SYN cookies with TPROXY redirect.
> >
> > Sorry for the question, but where is the problem?
> > (i.e., is it with TPROXY or bpf side)?
>
> The way I see it is that the problem is that we have mappings for
> steering traffic into sockets split between two places: (1) the socket
> lookup tables, and (2) the TPROXY rules.
>
> BPF programs that need to check if there is a socket the packet is
> destined for have access to the socket lookup tables, via the mentioned
> bpf_sk_lookup helper, but are unaware of TPROXY redirects.
>
> For TCP we're able to look up from BPF if there are any established,
> request, and "normal" listening sockets. The listening sockets that
> receive connections via TPROXY are invisible to BPF progs.
>
> Why are we interested in finding all listening sockets? To check if any
> of them had SYN queue overflow recently and if we should honor SYN
> cookies.

Why are they invisible? Can't you look them up with bpf_skc_lookup_tcp()?