[[NET-NEXT]] Added dump function to recognise rpl extension header option(63)

[[NET-NEXT]] Added dump function to recognise rpl extension header option(63)

[Andreas Bardoutsos]

Signed-off-by: Andreas Bardoutsos <bardoutsos@ceid.upatras.gr>
---
I have added a dump function(always return true) to recognise RPL 
extension header(RFC6553)
Otherwise packet was dropped by kernel resulting in impossible 
communication in RPL DAG's between
linux running border routers and devices in the graph,which may run 
different OS(contiki os for example)

  include/uapi/linux/in6.h |  1 +
  net/ipv6/exthdrs.c       | 13 +++++++++++++
  2 files changed, 14 insertions(+)

diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/in6.h b/include/uapi/linux/in6.h
index 46444f8fbee4..5cc12d309dfe 100644
--- a/include/uapi/linux/in6.h
+++ b/include/uapi/linux/in6.h
@@ -146,6 +146,7 @@ struct in6_flowlabel_req {
  #define IPV6_TLV_CALIPSO	7	/* RFC 5570 */
  #define IPV6_TLV_JUMBO		194
  #define IPV6_TLV_HAO		201	/* home address option */
+#define IPV6_TLV_RPL	99	/* RFC 6553 */

  /*
   *	IPV6 socket options
diff --git a/net/ipv6/exthdrs.c b/net/ipv6/exthdrs.c
index b636f1da9aec..82ed60d3180e 100644
--- a/net/ipv6/exthdrs.c
+++ b/net/ipv6/exthdrs.c
@@ -785,6 +785,15 @@ static bool ipv6_hop_calipso(struct sk_buff *skb, 
int optoff)
  	return false;
  }

+/* RPL RFC 6553 */
+
+static bool ipv6_hop_rpl(struct sk_buff *skb, int optoff)
+{
+	/*Dump function which always return true
+	*when rpl option is detected*/
+	return true;
+}
+
  static const struct tlvtype_proc tlvprochopopt_lst[] = {
  	{
  		.type	= IPV6_TLV_ROUTERALERT,
@@ -798,6 +807,10 @@ static const struct tlvtype_proc 
tlvprochopopt_lst[] = {
  		.type	= IPV6_TLV_CALIPSO,
  		.func	= ipv6_hop_calipso,
  	},
+	{
+		.type	= IPV6_TLV_RPL,
+		.func	= ipv6_hop_rpl,
+	},
  	{ -1, }
  };

Re: [[NET-NEXT]] Added dump function to recognise rpl extension header option(63)

[Stefan Schmidt]

Hello.

Lets do the review here on netdev.

Some general things first. You might want to use git send-email to make 
sure the formatting does not get screwed up from your mailer. Another 
thing to keep in mind is that net-next is closed right now (we are in 
the 4.12 merge window right now) and Dave will most likely as you to 
re-submit once it opens up again. On the other hand I would go as far as 
calling this a fix as it makes sure the needed packet does not get 
dropped in kernel space and unstrung as RPL daemon can work with it. It 
also fixes the RPL communication with Contiki.

Your subject line also needs a prefix like "ipv6: ext_header:". Maybe 
something like this is better:

ipv6: ext_header: add function to handle RPL option 0x63

On 05/04/2017 02:06 PM, Andreas Bardoutsos wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Andreas Bardoutsos <bardoutsos@ceid.upatras.gr>
> ---
> I have added a dump function(always return true) to recognise RPL
> extension header(RFC6553)
> Otherwise packet was dropped by kernel resulting in impossible
> communication in RPL DAG's between
> linux running border routers and devices in the graph,which may run
> different OS(contiki os for example)

Please put this useful information in the commit message.

>  include/uapi/linux/in6.h |  1 +
>  net/ipv6/exthdrs.c       | 13 +++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 14 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/in6.h b/include/uapi/linux/in6.h
> index 46444f8fbee4..5cc12d309dfe 100644
> --- a/include/uapi/linux/in6.h
> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/in6.h
> @@ -146,6 +146,7 @@ struct in6_flowlabel_req {
>  #define IPV6_TLV_CALIPSO    7    /* RFC 5570 */
>  #define IPV6_TLV_JUMBO        194
>  #define IPV6_TLV_HAO        201    /* home address option */
> +#define IPV6_TLV_RPL    99    /* RFC 6553 */
>
>  /*
>   *    IPV6 socket options
> diff --git a/net/ipv6/exthdrs.c b/net/ipv6/exthdrs.c
> index b636f1da9aec..82ed60d3180e 100644
> --- a/net/ipv6/exthdrs.c
> +++ b/net/ipv6/exthdrs.c
> @@ -785,6 +785,15 @@ static bool ipv6_hop_calipso(struct sk_buff *skb,
> int optoff)
>      return false;
>  }
>
> +/* RPL RFC 6553 */
> +
> +static bool ipv6_hop_rpl(struct sk_buff *skb, int optoff)
> +{
> +    /*Dump function which always return true
> +    *when rpl option is detected*/
> +    return true;

We might need to do some more processing later here. For now it should 
be good as a fix to get the RPL communication between Linux and Contiki 
working again. Michael, what extra checks would you need in the kernel here?

> +}
> +
>  static const struct tlvtype_proc tlvprochopopt_lst[] = {
>      {
>          .type    = IPV6_TLV_ROUTERALERT,
> @@ -798,6 +807,10 @@ static const struct tlvtype_proc
> tlvprochopopt_lst[] = {
>          .type    = IPV6_TLV_CALIPSO,
>          .func    = ipv6_hop_calipso,
>      },
> +    {
> +        .type    = IPV6_TLV_RPL,
> +        .func    = ipv6_hop_rpl,
> +    },
>      { -1, }
>  };


Reviewed-by: Stefan Schmidt <stefan@osg.samsung.com>

regards
Stefan Schmidt

Re: [[NET-NEXT]] Added dump function to recognise rpl extension header option(63)

[Florian Westphal]

Stefan Schmidt <stefan@osg.samsung.com> wrote:
> ipv6: ext_header: add function to handle RPL option 0x63

But its not handled, is it?

The kernel tosses it because the RPL option/RFC says so
('nodes that do not understand this option on a received
 packet MUST discard the packet.').

Re: [[NET-NEXT]] Added dump function to recognise rpl extension header option(63)

[Stefan Schmidt]

Hello.

On Thu, 2017-05-04 at 14:33, Florian Westphal wrote:
> Stefan Schmidt <stefan@osg.samsung.com> wrote:
> > ipv6: ext_header: add function to handle RPL option 0x63
> 
> But its not handled, is it?

Its not handled in the kernel. The RPL daemon would run in userspace in this
case.

>From my understanding unstrung (or any other RPL implementation) needs this
packet. Right now the kernel silently drops it. Michael would know best
about the details here and if we need some more logic in the kernel itself.
Maybe just some sanity checking of the TLV.

> The kernel tosses it because the RPL option/RFC says so
> ('nodes that do not understand this option on a received
>  packet MUST discard the packet.').

What we might need is a way to let the kernel know we have a RPL running with
support for this option. Would that meet your concern?

regards
Stefan Schmidt

Re: [[NET-NEXT]] Added dump function to recognise rpl extension header option(63)

[Florian Westphal]

Stefan Schmidt <stefan@osg.samsung.com> wrote:
> > The kernel tosses it because the RPL option/RFC says so
> > ('nodes that do not understand this option on a received
> >  packet MUST discard the packet.').
> 
> What we might need is a way to let the kernel know we have a RPL running with
> support for this option. Would that meet your concern?

Sure.

Re: [[NET-NEXT]] Added dump function to recognise rpl extension header option(63)

[David Miller]

From: Andreas Bardoutsos <bardoutsos@ceid.upatras.gr>
Date: Thu, 04 May 2017 14:06:32 +0200

> Signed-off-by: Andreas Bardoutsos <bardoutsos@ceid.upatras.gr>

First of all, the net-next tree is closed.  You will need to resubmit
this when the net-next tree opens back up.

Second of all, your Subject line is malformed.  Please format it like this:

	[PATCH net-next] ipv6: Add dump function to recognise rpl extension header option(63)

Thank you.