Re: [PATCH 2/3] ipvs: Fix faulty IPv6 extension header handling in IPVS

[Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@redhat.com>]

To Patrick,

On Wed, 2012-08-29 at 11:47 +0200, Hans Schillstrom wrote:
> >
> >On Mon, 2012-08-27 at 14:02 +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> >> On Mon, 27 Aug 2012, Hans Schillstrom wrote:
> >> 
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> On Mon, 20 Aug 2012, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>> Based on patch from: Hans Schillstrom
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> IPv6 headers must be processed in order of appearance,
> >> >>>>> neither can it be assumed that Upper layer headers is first.
> >> >>>>> If anything else than L4 is the first header IPVS will throw it.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> IPVS will write SNAT & DNAT modifications at a fixed pos which
> >> >>>>> will corrupt the message. Proper header position must be found
> >> >>>>> before writing modifying packet.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> This patch contains a lot of API changes.  This is done, to avoid
> >> >>>>> the costly scan of finding the IPv6 headers, via ipv6_find_hdr().
> >> >>>>> Finding the IPv6 headers is done as early as possible, and passed
> >> >>>>> on as a pointer "struct ip_vs_iphdr *" to the affected functions.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> How about we change netfilter to set up the skb's transport header
> >> >>>> at an early time so we can avoid all (most of) these header scans
> >> >>>> in netfilter?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I think that would be great, maybe it should be global i.e. not only a netfilter issue.
> >> >>
> >> >> I think in most other cases the headers are supposed to be processed
> >> >> sequentially. One problem though - to be useful for netfilter/IPVS
> >> >> we'd also need to store the transport layer protocol somewhere.
> >> >
> >> > I guess that's the problem, adding it to the skb will not be popular ....
> >> > Right now I don't have a good solution, maybe a more generic netfilter ptr in the skb ...
> >> 
> >> I guess inet6_skb_parm will be at least slightly more popular than
> >> adding it to the skb itself. The netfilter pointers are all used for
> >> optional things, so we can't really add it to any of those.
> >
> >Okay, but how do we go from here?
> >
> >Hans, should this hold back the patch ("ipvs: Fix faulty IPv6 extension
> >header handling in IPVS").  Or should we pursue our patch, and circle
> >back later once e.g. Patrick have found a generic solution for IPv6
> >transport header handling?
> 
> Should we give it a try to put it in inet6_skb_parm 
> and minimize what we put there ?
> I think it could be worth it.

Okay, but then I do need some help and guidance, especially from
Patrick, think.

First of all, where in the netfilter code, should we update the new
fields in inet6_skb_parm?