netdev - Re: [net-next 08/15] net/mlx5e: CT: Preparation for offloading +trk+new ct rules

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: <20210114130238.GA2676@horizon.localdomain>
Date:   Thu, 14 Jan 2021 10:02:38 -0300
From:   Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>
To:     Oz Shlomo <ozsh@...dia.com>
Cc:     Roi Dayan <roid@...dia.com>, Saeed Mahameed <saeed@...nel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Paul Blakey <paulb@...dia.com>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next 08/15] net/mlx5e: CT: Preparation for offloading
 +trk+new ct rules

On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 11:27:04AM +0200, Oz Shlomo wrote:
> 
> 
> On 1/12/2021 1:51 AM, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 09:52:55AM +0200, Roi Dayan wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On 2021-01-10 9:45 AM, Roi Dayan wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On 2021-01-08 11:48 PM, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 09:30:47PM -0800, Saeed Mahameed wrote:
> > > > > > From: Roi Dayan <roid@...dia.com>
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Connection tracking associates the connection state per packet. The
> > > > > > first packet of a connection is assigned with the +trk+new state. The
> > > > > > connection enters the established state once a packet is seen on the
> > > > > > other direction.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Currently we offload only the established flows. However, UDP traffic
> > > > > > using source port entropy (e.g. vxlan, RoCE) will never enter the
> > > > > > established state. Such protocols do not require stateful processing,
> > > > > > and therefore could be offloaded.
> > > > > 
> > > > > If it doesn't require stateful processing, please enlight me on why
> > > > > conntrack is being used in the first place. What's the use case here?
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > The use case for example is when we have vxlan traffic but we do
> > > > conntrack on the inner packet (rules on the physical port) so
> > > > we never get established but on miss we can still offload as normal
> > > > vxlan traffic.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > my mistake about "inner packet". we do CT on the underlay network, i.e.
> > > the outer header.
> > 
> > I miss why the CT match is being used there then. Isn't it a config
> > issue/waste of resources? What is CT adding to the matches/actions
> > being done on these flows?
> > 
> 
> Consider a use case where the network port receives both east-west
> encapsulated traffic and north-south non-encapsulated traffic that requires
> NAT.
> 
> One possible configuration is to first apply the CT-NAT action.
> Established north-south connections will successfully execute the nat action
> and will set the +est ct state.
> However, the +new state may apply either for valid east-west traffic (e.g.
> vxlan) due to source port entropy, or to insecure north-south traffic that
> the fw should block. The user may distinguish between the two cases, for
> example, by matching on the dest udp port.

Sorry but I still don't see the big picture. :-]

What do you consider as east-west and north-south traffic? My initial
understanding of east-west is traffic between VFs and north-south
would be in and out to the wire. You mentioned that north-south is
insecure, it would match, but then, non-encapsulated?

So it seems you referred to the datacenter. East-west is traffic
between hosts on the same datacenter, and north-south is traffic that
goes out of it. This seems to match.

Assuming it's the latter, then it seems that the idea is to work
around a config simplification that was done by the user.  As
mentioned on the changelog, such protocols do not require stateful
processing, and AFAICU this patch twists conntrack so that the user
can have simplified rules. Why can't the user have specific rules for
the tunnels, and other for dealing with north-south traffic? The fw
would still be able to block unwanted traffic.

My main problems with this is this, that it is making conntrack do
stuff that the user may not be expecting it to do, and that packets
may get matched (maybe even unintentionally) and the system won't have
visibility on them. Maybe I'm just missing something?

> 
> 
> > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The change in the model is that a miss on the CT table will be forwarded
> > > > > > to a new +trk+new ct table and a miss there will be forwarded to
> > > > > > the slow
> > > > > > path table.
> > > > > 
> > > > > AFAICU this new +trk+new ct table is a wildcard match on sport with
> > > > > specific dports. Also AFAICU, such entries will not be visible to the
> > > > > userspace then. Is this right?
> > > > > 
> > > > >     Marcelo
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > right.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Marcelo
> > 
>