netdev - Re: [PATCH net 2/2] net: sched: also drop dst for the packets toward ingress in act

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]

Date:   Thu, 23 Sep 2021 12:06:36 -0400
From:   Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
To:     Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
        Xin Long <lucien.xin@...il.com>
Cc:     network dev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>,
        Davide Caratti <dcaratti@...hat.com>,
        Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
        Shmulik Ladkani <shmulik.ladkani@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 2/2] net: sched: also drop dst for the packets toward
 ingress in act_mirred

+CC Shmulik.
Unfortunately we dont have good test cases in tdc to test different
scenarios of this setup (packets being redirected in both directions
once or several times).

cheers,
jamal

On 2021-09-21 11:52 p.m., Cong Wang wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 12:02 AM Xin Long <lucien.xin@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 2:34 AM Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 7:12 AM Xin Long <lucien.xin@...il.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Without dropping dst, the packets sent from local mirred/redirected
>>>> to ingress will may still use the old dst. ip_rcv() will drop it as
>>>> the old dst is for output and its .input is dst_discard.
>>>>
>>>> This patch is to fix by also dropping dst for those packets that are
>>>> mirred or redirected to ingress in act_mirred.
>>>
>>> Similar question: what about redirecting from ingress to egress?
>> We can do it IF there's any user case needing it.
>> But for now, The problem I've met occurred in ip_rcv() for the user case.
> 
> I think input route is different from output route, so essentially we need
> a reset when changing the direction, but I don't see any bugs so far,
> except this one.
> 
> Thanks.
>