| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2022 10:23:50 +0000
From: "Drewek, Wojciech" <wojciech.drewek@...el.com>
To: Guillaume Nault <gnault@...hat.com>,
Marcin Szycik <marcin.szycik@...ux.intel.com>
CC: "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"Nguyen, Anthony L" <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"xiyou.wangcong@...il.com" <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
"Brandeburg, Jesse" <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
"gustavoars@...nel.org" <gustavoars@...nel.org>,
"baowen.zheng@...igine.com" <baowen.zheng@...igine.com>,
"boris.sukholitko@...adcom.com" <boris.sukholitko@...adcom.com>,
"edumazet@...gle.com" <edumazet@...gle.com>,
"kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>,
"jhs@...atatu.com" <jhs@...atatu.com>,
"jiri@...nulli.us" <jiri@...nulli.us>,
"kurt@...utronix.de" <kurt@...utronix.de>,
"pablo@...filter.org" <pablo@...filter.org>,
"pabeni@...hat.com" <pabeni@...hat.com>,
"paulb@...dia.com" <paulb@...dia.com>,
"simon.horman@...igine.com" <simon.horman@...igine.com>,
"komachi.yoshiki@...il.com" <komachi.yoshiki@...il.com>,
"zhangkaiheb@....com" <zhangkaiheb@....com>,
"intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org" <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>,
"michal.swiatkowski@...ux.intel.com"
<michal.swiatkowski@...ux.intel.com>,
"Lobakin, Alexandr" <alexandr.lobakin@...el.com>,
"mostrows@...thlink.net" <mostrows@...thlink.net>,
"paulus@...ba.org" <paulus@...ba.org>
Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH net-next v4 1/4] flow_dissector: Add PPPoE dissectors
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Guillaume Nault <gnault@...hat.com>
> Sent: piątek, 8 lipca 2022 21:05
> To: Marcin Szycik <marcin.szycik@...ux.intel.com>
> Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org; Nguyen, Anthony L <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>; davem@...emloft.net;
> xiyou.wangcong@...il.com; Brandeburg, Jesse <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>; gustavoars@...nel.org;
> baowen.zheng@...igine.com; boris.sukholitko@...adcom.com; edumazet@...gle.com; kuba@...nel.org; jhs@...atatu.com;
> jiri@...nulli.us; kurt@...utronix.de; pablo@...filter.org; pabeni@...hat.com; paulb@...dia.com; simon.horman@...igine.com;
> komachi.yoshiki@...il.com; zhangkaiheb@....com; intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org; michal.swiatkowski@...ux.intel.com; Drewek,
> Wojciech <wojciech.drewek@...el.com>; Lobakin, Alexandr <alexandr.lobakin@...el.com>; mostrows@...thlink.net;
> paulus@...ba.org
> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v4 1/4] flow_dissector: Add PPPoE dissectors
>
> On Fri, Jul 08, 2022 at 02:24:18PM +0200, Marcin Szycik wrote:
> > From: Wojciech Drewek <wojciech.drewek@...el.com>
> >
> > Allow to dissect PPPoE specific fields which are:
> > - session ID (16 bits)
> > - ppp protocol (16 bits)
> > - type (16 bits) - this is PPPoE ethertype, for now only
> > ETH_P_PPP_SES is supported, possible ETH_P_PPP_DISC
> > in the future
> >
> > The goal is to make the following TC command possible:
> >
> > # tc filter add dev ens6f0 ingress prio 1 protocol ppp_ses \
> > flower \
> > pppoe_sid 12 \
> > ppp_proto ip \
> > action drop
> >
> > Note that only PPPoE Session is supported.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Wojciech Drewek <wojciech.drewek@...el.com>
> > ---
> > v4:
> > * pppoe header validation
> > * added MPLS dissection
> > * added support for compressed ppp protocol field
> > * flow_dissector_key_pppoe::session_id stored in __be16
> > * new field: flow_dissector_key_pppoe::type
> > v3: revert byte order changes in is_ppp_proto_supported from
> > previous version
> > v2: ntohs instead of htons in is_ppp_proto_supported
> >
> > include/net/flow_dissector.h | 13 ++++++
> > net/core/flow_dissector.c | 84 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> > 2 files changed, 90 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/net/flow_dissector.h b/include/net/flow_dissector.h
> > index a4c6057c7097..af0d429b9a26 100644
> > --- a/include/net/flow_dissector.h
> > +++ b/include/net/flow_dissector.h
> > @@ -261,6 +261,18 @@ struct flow_dissector_key_num_of_vlans {
> > u8 num_of_vlans;
> > };
> >
> > +/**
> > + * struct flow_dissector_key_pppoe:
> > + * @session_id: pppoe session id
> > + * @ppp_proto: ppp protocol
> > + * @type: pppoe eth type
> > + */
> > +struct flow_dissector_key_pppoe {
> > + __be16 session_id;
> > + __be16 ppp_proto;
> > + __be16 type;
>
> I don't understand the need for the new 'type' field.
Let's say user want to add below filter with just protocol field:
tc filter add dev ens6f0 ingress prio 1 protocol ppp_ses action drop
cls_flower would set basic.n_proto to ETH_P_PPP_SES, then PPPoE packet
arrives with ppp_proto = PPP_IP, which means that in __skb_flow_dissect basic.n_proto is going to
be set to ETH_P_IP. We have a mismatch here cls_flower set basic.n_proto to ETH_P_PPP_SES and
flow_dissector set it to ETH_P_IP. That's why in such example basic.n_proto has to be set to 0 (it works the same
with vlans) and key_pppoe::type has to be used. In other words basic.n_proto can't be used for storing
ETH_P_PPP_SES because it will store encapsulated protocol.
We could also use it to match on ETH_P_PPP_DISC.
>
> > +};
> > +
> > enum flow_dissector_key_id {
> > FLOW_DISSECTOR_KEY_CONTROL, /* struct flow_dissector_key_control */
> > FLOW_DISSECTOR_KEY_BASIC, /* struct flow_dissector_key_basic */
> > @@ -291,6 +303,7 @@ enum flow_dissector_key_id {
> > FLOW_DISSECTOR_KEY_CT, /* struct flow_dissector_key_ct */
> > FLOW_DISSECTOR_KEY_HASH, /* struct flow_dissector_key_hash */
> > FLOW_DISSECTOR_KEY_NUM_OF_VLANS, /* struct flow_dissector_key_num_of_vlans */
> > + FLOW_DISSECTOR_KEY_PPPOE, /* struct flow_dissector_key_pppoe */
> >
> > FLOW_DISSECTOR_KEY_MAX,
> > };
> > diff --git a/net/core/flow_dissector.c b/net/core/flow_dissector.c
> > index 6aee04f75e3e..3a90219d2354 100644
> > --- a/net/core/flow_dissector.c
> > +++ b/net/core/flow_dissector.c
> > @@ -895,6 +895,42 @@ bool bpf_flow_dissect(struct bpf_prog *prog, struct bpf_flow_dissector *ctx,
> > return result == BPF_OK;
> > }
> >
> > +/**
> > + * is_ppp_proto_supported - checks if inner PPP protocol should be dissected
> > + * @proto: protocol type (PPP proto field)
> > + */
> > +static bool is_ppp_proto_supported(__be16 proto)
> > +{
> > + switch (proto) {
> > + case htons(PPP_AT):
> > + case htons(PPP_IPX):
> > + case htons(PPP_VJC_COMP):
> > + case htons(PPP_VJC_UNCOMP):
> > + case htons(PPP_MP):
> > + case htons(PPP_COMPFRAG):
> > + case htons(PPP_COMP):
> > + case htons(PPP_IPCP):
> > + case htons(PPP_ATCP):
> > + case htons(PPP_IPXCP):
> > + case htons(PPP_IPV6CP):
> > + case htons(PPP_CCPFRAG):
> > + case htons(PPP_MPLSCP):
> > + case htons(PPP_LCP):
> > + case htons(PPP_PAP):
> > + case htons(PPP_LQR):
> > + case htons(PPP_CHAP):
> > + case htons(PPP_CBCP):
> > + return true;
> > + default:
> > + return false;
> > + }
> > +}
> > +
> > +static bool is_pppoe_ses_hdr_valid(struct pppoe_hdr hdr)
> > +{
> > + return hdr.ver == 1 && hdr.type == 1 && hdr.code == 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > /**
> > * __skb_flow_dissect - extract the flow_keys struct and return it
> > * @net: associated network namespace, derived from @skb if NULL
> > @@ -1214,26 +1250,60 @@ bool __skb_flow_dissect(const struct net *net,
> > struct pppoe_hdr hdr;
> > __be16 proto;
> > } *hdr, _hdr;
> > + __be16 ppp_proto;
> > +
> > hdr = __skb_header_pointer(skb, nhoff, sizeof(_hdr), data, hlen, &_hdr);
> > if (!hdr) {
> > fdret = FLOW_DISSECT_RET_OUT_BAD;
> > break;
> > }
> >
> > - nhoff += PPPOE_SES_HLEN;
> > - switch (hdr->proto) {
> > - case htons(PPP_IP):
> > + if (!is_pppoe_ses_hdr_valid(hdr->hdr)) {
> > + fdret = FLOW_DISSECT_RET_OUT_BAD;
> > + break;
> > + }
> > +
> > + /* least significant bit of the first byte
> > + * indicates if protocol field was compressed
> > + */
> > + if (hdr->proto & 1) {
> > + ppp_proto = hdr->proto << 8;
>
> This is little endian specific code. We can't make such assumptions.
Both ppp_proto and hdr->prot are stored in __be16 so left shift by 8 bits
should always be ok, am I right?
Should I use cpu_to_be16 on both 1 and 8. Is that what you mean?
>
> > + nhoff += PPPOE_SES_HLEN - 1;
> > + } else {
> > + ppp_proto = hdr->proto;
> > + nhoff += PPPOE_SES_HLEN;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (ppp_proto == htons(PPP_IP)) {
> > proto = htons(ETH_P_IP);
> > fdret = FLOW_DISSECT_RET_PROTO_AGAIN;
> > - break;
> > - case htons(PPP_IPV6):
> > + } else if (ppp_proto == htons(PPP_IPV6)) {
> > proto = htons(ETH_P_IPV6);
> > fdret = FLOW_DISSECT_RET_PROTO_AGAIN;
> > - break;
> > - default:
> > + } else if (ppp_proto == htons(PPP_MPLS_UC)) {
> > + proto = htons(ETH_P_MPLS_UC);
> > + fdret = FLOW_DISSECT_RET_PROTO_AGAIN;
> > + } else if (ppp_proto == htons(PPP_MPLS_MC)) {
> > + proto = htons(ETH_P_MPLS_MC);
> > + fdret = FLOW_DISSECT_RET_PROTO_AGAIN;
> > + } else if (is_ppp_proto_supported(ppp_proto)) {
> > + fdret = FLOW_DISSECT_RET_OUT_GOOD;
> > + } else {
> > fdret = FLOW_DISSECT_RET_OUT_BAD;
> > break;
> > }
> > +
> > + if (dissector_uses_key(flow_dissector,
> > + FLOW_DISSECTOR_KEY_PPPOE)) {
> > + struct flow_dissector_key_pppoe *key_pppoe;
> > +
> > + key_pppoe = skb_flow_dissector_target(flow_dissector,
> > + FLOW_DISSECTOR_KEY_PPPOE,
> > + target_container);
> > + key_pppoe->session_id = hdr->hdr.sid;
> > + key_pppoe->ppp_proto = ppp_proto;
> > + key_pppoe->type = htons(ETH_P_PPP_SES);
> > + }
> > break;
> > }
> > case htons(ETH_P_TIPC): {
> > --
> > 2.35.1
> >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists