Re: [PATCH net-next v18 20/25] ovpn: implement peer add/get/dump/delete via netlink

Antonio Quartulli
2025-01-20T10:45:01Z

On 20/01/2025 11:09, Sabrina Dubroca wrote:
> 2025-01-19, 14:12:05 +0100, Antonio Quartulli wrote:
>> On 17/01/2025 18:12, Sabrina Dubroca wrote:
>>> 2025-01-17, 13:59:35 +0100, Antonio Quartulli wrote:
>>>> On 17/01/2025 12:48, Sabrina Dubroca wrote:
>>>>> 2025-01-13, 10:31:39 +0100, Antonio Quartulli wrote:
>>>>>> int ovpn_nl_peer_new_doit(struct sk_buff *skb, struct genl_info *info)
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> - return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>>>>>> + struct nlattr *attrs[OVPN_A_PEER_MAX + 1];
>>>>>> + struct ovpn_priv *ovpn = info->user_ptr[0];
>>>>>> + struct ovpn_socket *ovpn_sock;
>>>>>> + struct socket *sock = NULL;
>>>>>> + struct ovpn_peer *peer;
>>>>>> + u32 sockfd, peer_id;
>>>>>> + int ret;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + /* peers can only be added when the interface is up and running */
>>>>>> + if (!netif_running(ovpn->dev))
>>>>>> + return -ENETDOWN;
>>>>>
>>>>> Since we're not under rtnl_lock here, the device could go down while
>>>>> we're creating this peer, and we may end up with a down device that
>>>>> has a peer anyway.
>>>>
>>>> hmm, indeed. This means we must hold the rtnl_lock to prevent ending up in
>>>> an inconsistent state.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure what this (and the peer flushing on NETDEV_DOWN) is
>>>>> trying to accomplish. Is it a problem to keep peers when the netdevice
>>>>> is down?
>>>>
>>>> This is the result of my discussion with Sergey that started in v23 5/23:
>>>>
>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/r/netdev/20241029-b4-ovpn-v11-5-de4698c73a25@openvpn.net/
>>>>
>>>> The idea was to match operational state with actual connectivity to peer(s).
>>>>
>>>> Originally I wanted to simply kee the carrier always on, but after further
>>>> discussion (including the meaning of the openvpn option --persist-tun) we
>>>> agreed on following the logic where an UP device has a peer connected (logic
>>>> is slightly different between MP and P2P).
>>>>
>>>> I am not extremely happy with the resulting complexity, but it seemed to be
>>>> blocker for Sergey.
>>>
>>> [after re-reading that discussion with Sergey]
>>>
>>> I don't understand why "admin does 'ip link set tun0 down'" means "we
>>> should get rid of all peers. For me the carrier situation goes the
>>> other way: no peer, no carrier (as if I unplugged the cable from my
>>> ethernet card), and it's independent of what the user does (ip link
>>> set XXX up/down). You have that with netif_carrier_{on,off}, but
>>> flushing peers when the admin does "ip link set tun0 down" is separate
>>> IMO.
>>
>> The reasoning was "the user is asking the VPN to go down - it should be
>> assumed that from that moment on no VPN traffic whatsoever should flow in
>> either direction".
>> Similarly to when you bring an Eth interface dwn - the phy link goes down as
>> well.
>>
>> Does it make sense?
>
> I'm not sure. If I turn the ovpn interface down for a second, the
> peers are removed. Will they come back when I bring the interface back
> up? That'd have to be done by userspace (which could also watch for
> the DOWN events and tell the kernel to flush the peers) - but some of
> the peers could have timed out in the meantime.
>
> If I set the VPN interface down, I expect no packets flowing through
> that interface (dropping the peers isn't necessary for that), but all
> non-data (key exchange etc sent by openvpn's userspace) should still
> go through, and IMO peer keepalive fits in that "non-data" category.

This was my original thought too and my original proposal followed this
idea :-)

However Sergey had a strong opinion about "the user expect no traffic
whatsoever".

I'd be happy about going again with your proposed approach, but I need
to be sure that on the next revision nobody will come asking to revert
this logic again :(

>
>
> What does openvpn currently do if I do
> ip link set tun0 down ; sleep 5 ; ip link set tun0 up
> with a tuntap interface?

I think nothing happens, because userspace doesn't monitor the netdev
status. Therefore, unless tun closed the socket (which I think it does
only when the interface is destroyed), userspace does not even realize
that the interface went down.

Regards,

>

--
Antonio Quartulli
OpenVPN Inc.