netdev - Re: [PATCH net] selftests: forwarding: vxlan_bridge

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: <20200218080024.GR2159@dhcp-12-139.nay.redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 18 Feb 2020 16:00:24 +0800
From:   Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     petrm@...lanox.com, pmachata@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        idosch@...lanox.com, petedaws@...il.com, daniel@...earbox.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] selftests: forwarding: vxlan_bridge_1d: fix tos value

Hi David,

Thanks for the comments. Please see the reply below.
On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 07:01:18PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 11:40:13AM +0100, Petr Machata wrote:
> >> RFC2474 states that "DS field [...] is intended to supersede the
> >> existing definitions of the IPv4 TOS octet [RFC791] and the IPv6 Traffic
> >> Class octet [IPv6]". So the field should be assumed to contain DSCP from
> >> that point on. In my opinion, that makes commit 71130f29979c incorrect.
> >> 
> >> (And other similar uses of RT_TOS in other tunneling devices likewise.)
> > 
> > Yes, that's also what I mean, should we update RT_TOS to match
> > RFC2474?
> 
> The RT_TOS() value elides the two lowest bits so that we can store other
> pieces of binary state into those two lower bits.

In my understanding, RT_TOS() only omit the lowest bits and first 3 bit, as
it defined like:
#define RT_TOS(tos)     ((tos)&IPTOS_TOS_MASK)
#define IPTOS_TOS_MASK          0x1E

> IPv4/6 Header:0 |0 1 2 3 |0 1 2 3 |0 1 2 3 |0 1 2 3 |
> RFC2474(IPv4)   |Version |  IHL   |    DSCP     |ECN|
> RFC1349(IPv4)   |Version |  IHL   | PREC |  TOS   |X|

This looks that it's based on rfc1349. At the same time, we have function
INET_ECN_encapsulate() to respect of rfc2474, which elides the two lowest
bits to stor ECN.

But this two has some conflicts. RT_TOS() omit config tos with 3 PREC bits
and 1 ECN bit. INET_ECN_encapsulate() then omit 1 more ECN bits and set
new ECN based on inner header.

Petr mentioned(and I agree) that this would make us lost 3 DSCP bit info.
So what I though is we should update IPTOS_TOS_MASK to 0xFC, so we can
catch all DSCP field from config tos and leave the two lowest ECN bit
to INET_ECN_encapsulate().

> 
> So you can't just blindly change the RT_TOS() definition without breaking
> a bunch of things.

Yes, RT_TOS() was used in many places. I'm also afraid it may break
some old configs. But then I found that the current IPTOS_TOS_MASK
is more strict. It only take 4 bits(and 1 bit will be overwrite by ECN bit
later) from tos config. If we update it to 0xFC, it would take more
bits.

So what do you think?

Thanks
Hangbin