netdev - Re: [PATCH V6] netfilter: netns nf_conntrack: per-netns net.netfilter.nf_conntrack

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: <aC-B1aSmjDvLEisv@calendula>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2025 21:58:13 +0200
From: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>
To: Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
Cc: lvxiafei <xiafei_xupt@....com>, coreteam@...filter.org,
	davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, horms@...nel.org,
	kadlec@...filter.org, kuba@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	lvxiafei@...setime.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, pabeni@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V6] netfilter: netns nf_conntrack: per-netns
 net.netfilter.nf_conntrack_max sysctl

On Thu, May 22, 2025 at 09:32:23PM +0200, Florian Westphal wrote:
> Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org> wrote:
> > > -        to nf_conntrack_buckets by default.
> > > -        Note that connection tracking entries are added to the table twice -- once
> > > -        for the original direction and once for the reply direction (i.e., with
> > > -        the reversed address). This means that with default settings a maxed-out
> > > -        table will have a average hash chain length of 2, not 1.
> > > +    - 0 - disabled (unlimited)
> > 
> > unlimited is too much, and the number of buckets is also global, how
> > does this work?
> 
> Its an historic wart going back to ip_conntrack - it was never the
> default but you could disable any and all limits even in the original
> version.

Thanks, I was just sitting here clueless.

> Wether its time to disallow 0 is a different topic and not related to this patch.
>
> I would argue: "yes", disallow 0 -- users can still set INT_MAX if they
>  want and that should provide enough rope to strangle yourself.

The question is how to make it without breaking crazy people.

> > > +    The limit of other netns cannot be greater than init_net netns.
> > > +    +----------------+-------------+----------------+
> > > +    | init_net netns | other netns | limit behavior |
> > > +    +----------------+-------------+----------------+
> > > +    | 0              | 0           | unlimited      |
> > > +    +----------------+-------------+----------------+
> > > +    | 0              | not 0       | other          |
> > > +    +----------------+-------------+----------------+
> > > +    | not 0          | 0           | init_net       |

in this case above...

> > > +    +----------------+-------------+----------------+
> > > +    | not 0          | not 0       | min            |

... and this case, init_net value is used as a cap for other netns.
Then, this is basically allowing to specify a maximum that is smaller
than init_netns.

IIUC, that sounds reasonable.

As for how to discontinue the unlimited in other netns, let me know if
you have any suggestions.

> > > +    +----------------+-------------+----------------+
> 
> I think this is fine, it doesn't really change things from init_net
> point of view.

Thanks for explaning.