netdev - Re: Netlink NLM_F_DUMP

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20220615090044.54229e73@kernel.org>
Date:   Wed, 15 Jun 2022 09:00:44 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Ismael Luceno <iluceno@...e.de>
Cc:     "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Netlink NLM_F_DUMP_INTR flag lost

CC: netdev ML

On Wed, 15 Jun 2022 17:11:13 +0200 Ismael Luceno wrote:
> It seems a RTM_GETADDR request with AF_UNSPEC has a corner case where
> the NLM_F_DUMP_INTR flag is lost.
> 
> After a change in an address table, if a packet has been fully filled
> just previous, and if the end of the table is found at the same time,
> then the next packet should be flagged, which works fine when it's
> NLMSG_DONE, but gets clobbered when another table is to be dumped next.

Could you describe how it gets clobbered? You mean that prev_seq gets
updated somewhere without setting the flag or something overwrites
nlmsg_flags? Or we set _INTR on an empty skb which never ends up
getting sent? Or..

> A customer noticed the issue using kubernetes, when a large
> number of short-lived containers would push the system constantly
> towards this corner case.
> 
> I'm entertaining the following options:
> 
> 1) introduce a new packet type just to convey flags in cases like this.
> 2) preserve the flag and apply it to the NLMSG_DONE packet.
> 3) flag the first packet of the following table.
> 
> I don't like option 2 and 3 because we can't tell which table is
> affected, which I'm guessing programs might be relying on.
> 
> Option 1 adds a little bit of overhead, but enables us to tell which
> table is affected, and can be ignored by existing software that doesn't
> understand it, so IMHO it's the least disruptive option.
> 
> I want to have a little discussion before introducing a patch, since
> option 1 might have other implications I'm not aware of...