netdev.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org>
To: Hans Schillstrom <hans@schillstrom.com>
Cc: Hans Schillstrom <hans.schillstrom@ericsson.com>,
	kaber@trash.net, jengelh@medozas.de,
	netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] NETFILTER module xt_hmark, new target for HASH based fwmark
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 10:12:41 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120123091241.GA23374@1984> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201201230020.20857.hans@schillstrom.com>

On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 12:20:15AM +0100, Hans Schillstrom wrote:
> The text should clarify that this is valid for the fragments not the "flow"
> 
> > I've got one scenario that may break with this assumption:
> > 
> > 1) your traffic follows one path over router A and B to reach your
> >    firewall F which requires no fragmentation at all.
> > 2) path to router B becomes broken while there are established flows
> >    with firewall F.
> > 3) router A decides to forward packets to router C, which fragment
> >    packets because it is using smaller MTU than router A.
> > 4) packets arrive to firewall F, then hashing is calculated based on
> >    addresses, not ports, and you load-sharing becomes inconsistent.
> > 
> > This can rarely happen, but it does, it would break.
> > 
> > To fix this, I think that HMARK requires that you have to specify the
> > hashing strategy. If you want to support fragments, use only
> > addresses. If you're sure you will not get fragments, use layer 3 and
> > layer 4 information.
> 
> I know but if you use conntrack, fragments will not be seen by HMARK
> (except for IPv6 until Patric has fix the IPv6 defrag)

Please, read the scenario, I'm not talking about conntrack this time.

> We handle this by not having stateful FW:s when connected to external routers.
> Fragments will take an extra turn to a container with conntrack and there
> HMARK works as on the unfragmented packets in the flow.

Yes, I got the idea. Indeed HMARK can be very useful in other situations,
like cluster-based OSPF setups with stateful firewalls following a
similar approach.

However, you don't reply to my scenario. What I'm telling is that,
even with conntrack disabled, HMARK is not consistent if you start
receiving fragments at some point.

[...]
> > > +/*
> > > + * ICMP, get inner header so calc can be made on the source message
> > > + *
> > > + * iphsz: ip header size in bytes
> > > + * nhoff: network header offset
> > > + * return; updated nhoff if an icmp error
> > > + */
> > 
> > Please, remove these comments:
> 
> No problems

Thanks.

> > > +struct _icmpv6_errh {
> > > +	__u8		icmp6_type;
> > > +	__u8		icmp6_code;
> > > +	__u16		icmp6_cksum;
> > > +	__u32		icmp6_nu;
> > > +};
> > 
> > Interesting, by quick search, I don't find this structure defined
> > elsewhere, why?
> > 
> I have no idea ...
> the closest is "struct icmp6hdr" but it contains everythingi

have a look at offsetof, you can use the existing structure but tell
skb_copy_header to copy only the part you're interested. Add a comment
telling what you're only copying part of the header to warn others (in
this case, the comment becomes useful since it clarifies something
that you may not notice at a first glance by looking at the code).

[...]
> > > +	if (!info->hmod)
> > > +		return XT_CONTINUE;
> > 
> > why this? check in user-space that libxt_HMARK does not send this to
> > kernel-space and check it again in checkentry().
> 
> Well, better safe than ... divide by zero
> 
> OK, it very very unlikely that it becomes zero
> so if you want I can remove that check.

*Extremely unlikely*, I'd say :-). If you double check that hmod is
non-zero in user-space and checkentry(), we will not hit that branch
ever. Moreover, that branch is in the hot path while the others are
only configure-time paths.

  reply	other threads:[~2012-01-23  9:12 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-01-13  9:52 [v7 PATCH 0/3] NETFILTER new target module, HMARK Hans Schillstrom
2012-01-13  9:52 ` [PATCH 1/3] NETFILTER added flags to ipv6_find_hdr() Hans Schillstrom
2012-01-13  9:52 ` [PATCH 2/3] NETFILTER module xt_hmark, new target for HASH based fwmark Hans Schillstrom
2012-01-22 21:44   ` Pablo Neira Ayuso
2012-01-22 23:20     ` Hans Schillstrom
2012-01-23  9:12       ` Pablo Neira Ayuso [this message]
2012-01-23  9:49         ` Hans Schillstrom
2012-01-23 17:01           ` Pablo Neira Ayuso
2012-01-24 17:56             ` Hans Schillstrom
2012-01-24 18:15               ` Pablo Neira Ayuso
2012-01-25 10:14                 ` Hans Schillstrom
2012-01-25 11:49                   ` Pablo Neira Ayuso
2012-01-25 12:28                     ` Hans Schillstrom
2012-01-13  9:52 ` [v7 PATCH 3/3] NETFILTER userspace part for target HMARK Hans Schillstrom

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=20120123091241.GA23374@1984 \
    --to=pablo@netfilter.org \
    --cc=hans.schillstrom@ericsson.com \
    --cc=hans@schillstrom.com \
    --cc=jengelh@medozas.de \
    --cc=kaber@trash.net \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).