netdev - Re: [PATCH net] ipv4: Fix tos mask in inet_rtm

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20201129125416.GA28479@linux.home>
Date:   Sun, 29 Nov 2020 13:54:16 +0100
From:   Guillaume Nault <gnault@...hat.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Russell Strong <russell@...ong.id.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] ipv4: Fix tos mask in inet_rtm_getroute()

On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 01:17:16PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Nov 2020 10:03:42 -0700 David Ahern wrote:
> > On 11/26/20 11:09 AM, Guillaume Nault wrote:
> > > When inet_rtm_getroute() was converted to use the RCU variants of
> > > ip_route_input() and ip_route_output_key(), the TOS parameters
> > > stopped being masked with IPTOS_RT_MASK before doing the route lookup.
> > > 
> > > As a result, "ip route get" can return a different route than what
> > > would be used when sending real packets.
> > > 
> > > For example:
> > > 
> > >     $ ip route add 192.0.2.11/32 dev eth0
> > >     $ ip route add unreachable 192.0.2.11/32 tos 2
> > >     $ ip route get 192.0.2.11 tos 2
> > >     RTNETLINK answers: No route to host
> > > 
> > > But, packets with TOS 2 (ECT(0) if interpreted as an ECN bit) would
> > > actually be routed using the first route:
> > > 
> > >     $ ping -c 1 -Q 2 192.0.2.11
> > >     PING 192.0.2.11 (192.0.2.11) 56(84) bytes of data.
> > >     64 bytes from 192.0.2.11: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.173 ms
> > > 
> > >     --- 192.0.2.11 ping statistics ---
> > >     1 packets transmitted, 1 received, 0% packet loss, time 0ms
> > >     rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.173/0.173/0.173/0.000 ms
> > > 
> > > This patch re-applies IPTOS_RT_MASK in inet_rtm_getroute(), to
> > > return results consistent with real route lookups.
> > > 
> > > Fixes: 3765d35ed8b9 ("net: ipv4: Convert inet_rtm_getroute to rcu versions of route lookup")
> > > Signed-off-by: Guillaume Nault <gnault@...hat.com>
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>
> 
> Applied, thanks!
> 
> Should the discrepancy between the behavior of ip_route_input_rcu() and
> ip_route_input() be addressed, possibly?

Do you mean masking TOS with IPTOS_RT_MASK directly in
ip_route_input_rcu(), instead of in the callers?

After this patch, all callers apply IPTOS_RT_MASK before calling
ip_route_input_rcu(). So, yes, that could be easily consolidated there,
and I'll do that after net merges into net-next.

More generally, my long term plan is indeed to do mask the TOS in
central places, to get consistent behaviour across the networking
stack. However, generally speaking, I need to be careful not to break
any established behaviour.

I'm mostly worried about the ECN bits. I guess that any caller that
doesn't mask these bits has a bug (as that may break ECN, which is
there since a long time). However, there are many code paths to audit
before we can be sure.

The end goal is to fully support DSCP. Once we'll be sure that no
code path can possibly intreprete an ECN bit as TOS, we'll can safely
drop all those obsolete TOS* masks and macros from the kernel code and
simply mask out the ECN bits (thus preserving the whole DSCP space).

Please note that this is background work for me. Expect slow (but
hopefully regular) progress from me.