From: David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>
To: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>, Jianlin Shi <jishi@redhat.com>,
Wei Wang <weiwan@google.com>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@fi.rohmeurope.com>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v4 1/8] ipv4/fib_frontend: Rename ip_valid_fib_dump_req, provide non-strict version
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2019 07:18:10 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <f6ed8beb-0892-059a-2b08-90e782226115@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190615052705.66f3fe62@redhat.com>
On 6/14/19 9:27 PM, Stefano Brivio wrote:
>>>> Can you explain why this patch is needed? The existing function requires
>>>> strict mode and is needed to enable any of the kernel side filtering
>>>> beyond the RTM_F_CLONED setting in rtm_flags.
>>>
>>> It's mostly to have proper NLM_F_MATCH support. Let's pick an iproute2
>>> version without strict checking support (< 5.0), that sets NLM_F_MATCH
>>> though. Then we need this check:
>>>
>>> if (nlh->nlmsg_len < nlmsg_msg_size(sizeof(*rtm)))
>>
>> but that check existed long before any of the strict checking and kernel
>> side filtering was added.
>
> Indeed. And now I'm recycling it, even if strict checking is not
> requested.
>
>>> and to set filter parameters not just based on flags (i.e. RTM_F_CLONED),
>>> but also on table, protocol, etc.
>>
>> and to do that you *must* have strict checking. There is no way to trust
>> userspace without that strict flag set because iproute2 for the longest
>> time sent the wrong header for almost all dump requests.
>
> So you're implying that:
>
> - we shouldn't support NLM_F_MATCH
>
> - we should keep this broken for iproute2 < 5.0.0?
>
> I guess this might be acceptable, but please state it clearly.
>
> By the way, if really needed, we can do strict checking even if not
> requested. But this might add more and more userspace breakage, I guess.
>
Prior to 5.0 and strict checking, iproute2 was sending ifinfomsg as the
header struct - which is wrong for routes. ifi_flags just happens to
have the same offset as rtm_flags so the check for RTM_F_CLONED is ok,
but nothing else sent in the get request (e.g., potentially appended
attributes) can be trusted, so the !strict path you are adding with
nlmsg_parse_deprecated is wrong. The kernel side filter argument can be
used and treating RTM_F_CLONED as a filter is ok, but not the new
parsing code.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-06-17 13:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-06-15 1:32 [PATCH net v4 0/8] Fix listing (IPv4, IPv6) and flushing (IPv6) of cached route exceptions Stefano Brivio
2019-06-15 1:32 ` [PATCH net v4 1/8] ipv4/fib_frontend: Rename ip_valid_fib_dump_req, provide non-strict version Stefano Brivio
2019-06-15 2:54 ` David Ahern
2019-06-15 3:13 ` Stefano Brivio
2019-06-15 3:16 ` David Ahern
2019-06-15 3:27 ` Stefano Brivio
2019-06-16 20:04 ` Stefano Brivio
2019-06-17 13:38 ` David Ahern
2019-06-17 14:13 ` Stefano Brivio
2019-06-17 17:06 ` David Ahern
2019-06-17 18:28 ` Stefano Brivio
2019-06-17 13:18 ` David Ahern [this message]
2019-06-15 1:32 ` [PATCH net v4 2/8] ipv4: Honour NLM_F_MATCH, make semantics of NETLINK_GET_STRICT_CHK consistent Stefano Brivio
2019-06-15 3:13 ` David Ahern
2019-06-15 3:23 ` Stefano Brivio
2019-06-17 13:29 ` David Ahern
2019-06-15 1:32 ` [PATCH net v4 3/8] ipv4/fib_frontend: Allow RTM_F_CLONED flag to be used for filtering Stefano Brivio
2019-06-15 1:32 ` [PATCH 4/8] ipv4: Dump routed caches if requested Stefano Brivio
2019-06-15 1:32 ` [PATCH 5/8] Revert "net/ipv6: Bail early if user only wants cloned entries" Stefano Brivio
2019-06-15 1:32 ` [PATCH 6/8] ipv6: Honour NLM_F_MATCH, make semantics of NETLINK_GET_STRICT_CHK consistent Stefano Brivio
2019-06-15 1:32 ` [PATCH 7/8] ipv6: Dump route exceptions too in rt6_dump_route() Stefano Brivio
2019-06-15 1:32 ` [PATCH 8/8] ip6_fib: Don't discard nodes with valid routing information in fib6_locate_1() Stefano Brivio
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=f6ed8beb-0892-059a-2b08-90e782226115@gmail.com \
--to=dsahern@gmail.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=jishi@redhat.com \
--cc=kafai@fb.com \
--cc=matti.vaittinen@fi.rohmeurope.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sbrivio@redhat.com \
--cc=weiwan@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.