Message-ID: <189dbeea-127a-47e8-84f8-c8cf1cc03536@openvpn.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2024 14:20:45 +0100
From: Antonio Quartulli <antonio@...nvpn.net>
To: Sabrina Dubroca <sd@...asysnail.net>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
 Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Donald Hunter <donald.hunter@...il.com>,
 Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, ryazanov.s.a@...il.com,
 Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v11 15/23] ovpn: implement keepalive mechanism

On 05/11/2024 19:10, Sabrina Dubroca wrote:
> 2024-10-29, 11:47:28 +0100, Antonio Quartulli wrote:
>> @@ -105,6 +132,9 @@ void ovpn_decrypt_post(void *data, int ret)
>>   		goto drop;
>>   	}
>>   
>> +	/* keep track of last received authenticated packet for keepalive */
>> +	peer->last_recv = ktime_get_real_seconds();
> 
> It doesn't look like we're locking the peer here so that should be a
> WRITE_ONCE() (and READ_ONCE(peer->last_recv) for all reads).

Is that because last_recv is 64 bit long (and might be more than one 
word on certain architectures)?

I don't remember having to do so for reading/writing 32 bit long integers.

I presume we need a WRITE_ONCE also upon initialization in 
ovpn_peer_keepalive_set() right?
We still want to coordinate that with other reads/writes.

> 
>> +
>>   	/* point to encapsulated IP packet */
>>   	__skb_pull(skb, payload_offset);
>>   
>> @@ -121,6 +151,12 @@ void ovpn_decrypt_post(void *data, int ret)
>>   			goto drop;
>>   		}
>>   
>> +		if (ovpn_is_keepalive(skb)) {
>> +			net_dbg_ratelimited("%s: ping received from peer %u\n",
>> +					    peer->ovpn->dev->name, peer->id);
>> +			goto drop;
> 
> To help with debugging connectivity issues, maybe keepalives shouldn't
> be counted as drops? (consume_skb instead of kfree_skb, and not
> incrementing rx_dropped)
> The packet was successfully received and did all it had to do.

you're absolutely right. Will change that.

> 
>> +		}
>> +
>>   		net_info_ratelimited("%s: unsupported protocol received from peer %u\n",
>>   				     peer->ovpn->dev->name, peer->id);
>>   		goto drop;
>> @@ -221,6 +257,10 @@ void ovpn_encrypt_post(void *data, int ret)
>>   		/* no transport configured yet */
>>   		goto err;
>>   	}
>> +
>> +	/* keep track of last sent packet for keepalive */
>> +	peer->last_sent = ktime_get_real_seconds();
> 
> And another WRITE_ONCE() here (also paired with READ_ONCE() on the
> read side).

Yap

> 
> 
>> +static int ovpn_peer_del_nolock(struct ovpn_peer *peer,
>> +				enum ovpn_del_peer_reason reason)
>> +{
>> +	switch (peer->ovpn->mode) {
>> +	case OVPN_MODE_MP:
> 
> I think it would be nice to add
> 
>      lockdep_assert_held(&peer->ovpn->peers->lock);
> 
>> +		return ovpn_peer_del_mp(peer, reason);
>> +	case OVPN_MODE_P2P:
> 
> and here
> 
>      lockdep_assert_held(&peer->ovpn->lock);

Yeah, good idea.
__must_hold() can't work here, so lockdep_assert_held is definitely the 
way to go.

> 
> (I had to check that ovpn_peer_del_nolock is indeed called with those
> locks held since they're taken by ovpn_peer_keepalive_work_{mp,p2p},
> adding these assertions would make it clear that ovpn_peer_del_nolock
> is not an unsafe version of ovpn_peer_del)

Right, it makes sense.

> 
>> +		return ovpn_peer_del_p2p(peer, reason);
>> +	default:
>> +		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>> +	}
>> +}
>> +
>>   /**
>>    * ovpn_peers_free - free all peers in the instance
>>    * @ovpn: the instance whose peers should be released
>> @@ -830,3 +871,150 @@ void ovpn_peers_free(struct ovpn_struct *ovpn)
>>   		ovpn_peer_unhash(peer, OVPN_DEL_PEER_REASON_TEARDOWN);
>>   	spin_unlock_bh(&ovpn->peers->lock);
>>   }
>> +
>> +static time64_t ovpn_peer_keepalive_work_single(struct ovpn_peer *peer,
>> +						time64_t now)
>> +{
>> +	time64_t next_run1, next_run2, delta;
>> +	unsigned long timeout, interval;
>> +	bool expired;
>> +
>> +	spin_lock_bh(&peer->lock);
>> +	/* we expect both timers to be configured at the same time,
>> +	 * therefore bail out if either is not set
>> +	 */
>> +	if (!peer->keepalive_timeout || !peer->keepalive_interval) {
>> +		spin_unlock_bh(&peer->lock);
>> +		return 0;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	/* check for peer timeout */
>> +	expired = false;
>> +	timeout = peer->keepalive_timeout;
>> +	delta = now - peer->last_recv;
> 
> I'm not sure that's always > 0 if we finish decrypting a packet just
> as the workqueue starts:
> 
>    ovpn_peer_keepalive_work
>      now = ...
> 
>                                         ovpn_decrypt_post
>                                           peer->last_recv = ...
> 
>    ovpn_peer_keepalive_work_single
>      delta: now < peer->last_recv
> 

Yeah, there is nothing preventing this from happening...but is this 
truly a problem? The math should still work, no?

However:

> 
> 
>> +	if (delta < timeout) {
>> +		peer->keepalive_recv_exp = now + timeout - delta;
> 
> I'd shorten that to
> 
>      peer->keepalive_recv_exp = peer->last_recv + timeout;
> 
> it's a bit more readable to my eyes and avoids risks of wrapping
> values.
> 
> So I'd probably get rid of delta and go with:
> 
>      last_recv = READ_ONCE(peer->last_recv)
>      if (now < last_recv + timeout) {
>      	peer->keepalive_recv_exp = last_recv + timeout;
>      	next_run1 = peer->keepalive_recv_exp;
>      } else if ...
> 
>> +		next_run1 = peer->keepalive_recv_exp;
>> +	} else if (peer->keepalive_recv_exp > now) {
>> +		next_run1 = peer->keepalive_recv_exp;
>> +	} else {
>> +		expired = true;
>> +	}

I agree this is simpler to read and gets rid of some extra operations.

[note: I took inspiration from nat_keepalive_work_single() - it could be 
simplified as well I guess]

> 
> [...]
>> +	/* check for peer keepalive */
>> +	expired = false;
>> +	interval = peer->keepalive_interval;
>> +	delta = now - peer->last_sent;
>> +	if (delta < interval) {
>> +		peer->keepalive_xmit_exp = now + interval - delta;
>> +		next_run2 = peer->keepalive_xmit_exp;
> 
> and same here

Yeah, will change both. Thanks!


Regards,


-- 
Antonio Quartulli
OpenVPN Inc.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists