netdev - Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 4.9 89/99] vrf: mark skb for multicast or link-local as enslaved to VRF

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 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:   Sun, 17 Nov 2019 09:44:38 -0700
From:   David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
To:     Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        stable@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Mike Manning <mmanning@...tta.att-mail.com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 4.9 89/99] vrf: mark skb for multicast or
 link-local as enslaved to VRF

On 11/16/19 8:50 AM, Sasha Levin wrote:
> From: Mike Manning <mmanning@...tta.att-mail.com>
> 
> [ Upstream commit 6f12fa775530195a501fb090d092c637f32d0cc5 ]
> 
> The skb for packets that are multicast or to a link-local address are
> not marked as being enslaved to a VRF, if they are received on a socket
> bound to the VRF. This is needed for ND and it is preferable for the
> kernel not to have to deal with the additional use-cases if ll or mcast
> packets are handled as enslaved. However, this does not allow service
> instances listening on unbound and bound to VRF sockets to distinguish
> the VRF used, if packets are sent as multicast or to a link-local
> address. The fix is for the VRF driver to also mark these skb as being
> enslaved to the VRF.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mike Manning <mmanning@...tta.att-mail.com>
> Reviewed-by: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
> Tested-by: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
> ---
>  drivers/net/vrf.c | 19 +++++++++----------
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> 

backporting this patch and it's bug fix, "ipv6: Fix handling of LLA with
VRF and sockets bound to VRF" to 4.14 is a bit questionable. They
definitely do not need to come back to 4.9.