From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED, USER_AGENT_GIT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 823F6C282C2 for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2019 07:44:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E8CF2084C for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2019 07:44:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728710AbfAYHon (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Jan 2019 02:44:43 -0500 Received: from a.mx.secunet.com ([62.96.220.36]:58764 "EHLO a.mx.secunet.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728542AbfAYHof (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Jan 2019 02:44:35 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a.mx.secunet.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94959202BC; Fri, 25 Jan 2019 08:44:32 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: by secunet Received: from a.mx.secunet.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (a.mx.secunet.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lQuhApBk_mgv; Fri, 25 Jan 2019 08:44:30 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-essen-01.secunet.de (mail-essen-01.secunet.de [10.53.40.204]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a.mx.secunet.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B4DD9202B8; Fri, 25 Jan 2019 08:44:29 +0100 (CET) Received: from gauss2.secunet.de (10.182.7.193) by mail-essen-01.secunet.de (10.53.40.204) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.435.0; Fri, 25 Jan 2019 08:44:29 +0100 Received: by gauss2.secunet.de (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 2E39331801C0; Fri, 25 Jan 2019 08:44:29 +0100 (CET) From: Steffen Klassert To: David Miller CC: Herbert Xu , Steffen Klassert , Subject: [PATCH 01/10] selftests: xfrm: add block rules with adjacent/overlapping subnets Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2019 08:44:17 +0100 Message-ID: <20190125074426.31053-2-steffen.klassert@secunet.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.17.1 In-Reply-To: <20190125074426.31053-1-steffen.klassert@secunet.com> References: <20190125074426.31053-1-steffen.klassert@secunet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-G-Data-MailSecurity-for-Exchange-State: 0 X-G-Data-MailSecurity-for-Exchange-Error: 0 X-G-Data-MailSecurity-for-Exchange-Sender: 23 X-G-Data-MailSecurity-for-Exchange-Server: d65e63f7-5c15-413f-8f63-c0d707471c93 X-EXCLAIMER-MD-CONFIG: 2c86f778-e09b-4440-8b15-867914633a10 X-G-Data-MailSecurity-for-Exchange-Guid: 97D0ACD2-F0DF-47BF-B835-68BBAB3751ED X-G-Data-MailSecurity-for-Exchange-ProcessedOnRouted: True Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org From: Florian Westphal The existing script lacks a policy pattern that triggers 'tree node merges' in the kernel. Consider adding policy affecting following subnet: pol1: dst 10.0.0.0/22 pol2: dst 10.0.0.0/23 # adds to existing 10.0.0.0/22 node -> no problems here. But now, lets consider reverse order: pol1: dst 10.0.0.0/24 pol2: dst 10.0.0.0/23 # CANNOT add to existing node When second policy gets added, the kernel must check that the new node ("10.0.0.0/23") doesn't overlap with any existing subnet. Example: dst 10.0.0.0/24 dst 10.0.0.1/24 dst 10.0.0.0/23 When the third policy gets added, the kernel must replace the nodes for the 10.0.0.0/24 and 10.0.0.1/24 policies with a single one and must merge all the subtrees/lists stored in those nodes into the new node. The existing test cases only have overlaps with a single node, so no merging takes place (we can always remove the 'old' node and replace it with the new subnet prefix). Add a few 'block policies' in a pattern that triggers this, with a priority that will make kernel prefer the 'esp' rules. Make sure the 'tunnel ping' tests still pass after they have been added. Signed-off-by: Florian Westphal Signed-off-by: Steffen Klassert --- tools/testing/selftests/net/xfrm_policy.sh | 109 +++++++++++++++++---- 1 file changed, 91 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-) diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/net/xfrm_policy.sh b/tools/testing/selftests/net/xfrm_policy.sh index 8db35b99457c..b5a1b565a7e6 100755 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/net/xfrm_policy.sh +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/net/xfrm_policy.sh @@ -46,6 +46,58 @@ do_esp() { ip -net $ns xfrm policy add src $rnet dst $lnet dir fwd tmpl src $remote dst $me proto esp mode tunnel priority 100 action allow } +# add policies with different netmasks, to make sure kernel carries +# the policies contained within new netmask over when search tree is +# re-built. +# peer netns that are supposed to be encapsulated via esp have addresses +# in the 10.0.1.0/24 and 10.0.2.0/24 subnets, respectively. +# +# Adding a policy for '10.0.1.0/23' will make it necessary to +# alter the prefix of 10.0.1.0 subnet. +# In case new prefix overlaps with existing node, the node and all +# policies it carries need to be merged with the existing one(s). +# +# Do that here. +do_overlap() +{ + local ns=$1 + + # adds new nodes to tree (neither network exists yet in policy database). + ip -net $ns xfrm policy add src 10.1.0.0/24 dst 10.0.0.0/24 dir fwd priority 200 action block + + # adds a new node in the 10.0.0.0/24 tree (dst node exists). + ip -net $ns xfrm policy add src 10.2.0.0/24 dst 10.0.0.0/24 dir fwd priority 200 action block + + # adds a 10.2.0.0/24 node, but for different dst. + ip -net $ns xfrm policy add src 10.2.0.0/24 dst 10.0.1.0/24 dir fwd priority 200 action block + + # dst now overlaps with the 10.0.1.0/24 ESP policy in fwd. + # kernel must 'promote' existing one (10.0.0.0/24) to 10.0.0.0/23. + # But 10.0.0.0/23 also includes existing 10.0.1.0/24, so that node + # also has to be merged too, including source-sorted subtrees. + # old: + # 10.0.0.0/24 (node 1 in dst tree of the bin) + # 10.1.0.0/24 (node in src tree of dst node 1) + # 10.2.0.0/24 (node in src tree of dst node 1) + # 10.0.1.0/24 (node 2 in dst tree of the bin) + # 10.0.2.0/24 (node in src tree of dst node 2) + # 10.2.0.0/24 (node in src tree of dst node 2) + # + # The next 'policy add' adds dst '10.0.0.0/23', which means + # that dst node 1 and dst node 2 have to be merged including + # the sub-tree. As no duplicates are allowed, policies in + # the two '10.0.2.0/24' are also merged. + # + # after the 'add', internal search tree should look like this: + # 10.0.0.0/23 (node in dst tree of bin) + # 10.0.2.0/24 (node in src tree of dst node) + # 10.1.0.0/24 (node in src tree of dst node) + # 10.2.0.0/24 (node in src tree of dst node) + # + # 10.0.0.0/24 and 10.0.1.0/24 nodes have been merged as 10.0.0.0/23. + ip -net $ns xfrm policy add src 10.1.0.0/24 dst 10.0.0.0/23 dir fwd priority 200 action block +} + do_esp_policy_get_check() { local ns=$1 local lnet=$2 @@ -160,6 +212,41 @@ check_xfrm() { return $lret } +check_exceptions() +{ + logpostfix="$1" + local lret=0 + + # ping to .254 should be excluded from the tunnel (exception is in place). + check_xfrm 0 254 + if [ $? -ne 0 ]; then + echo "FAIL: expected ping to .254 to fail ($logpostfix)" + lret=1 + else + echo "PASS: ping to .254 bypassed ipsec tunnel ($logpostfix)" + fi + + # ping to .253 should use use ipsec due to direct policy exception. + check_xfrm 1 253 + if [ $? -ne 0 ]; then + echo "FAIL: expected ping to .253 to use ipsec tunnel ($logpostfix)" + lret=1 + else + echo "PASS: direct policy matches ($logpostfix)" + fi + + # ping to .2 should use ipsec. + check_xfrm 1 2 + if [ $? -ne 0 ]; then + echo "FAIL: expected ping to .2 to use ipsec tunnel ($logpostfix)" + lret=1 + else + echo "PASS: policy matches ($logpostfix)" + fi + + return $lret +} + #check for needed privileges if [ "$(id -u)" -ne 0 ];then echo "SKIP: Need root privileges" @@ -270,31 +357,17 @@ do_exception ns4 10.0.3.10 10.0.3.1 10.0.1.253 10.0.1.240/28 do_exception ns3 dead:3::1 dead:3::10 dead:2::fd dead:2:f0::/96 do_exception ns4 dead:3::10 dead:3::1 dead:1::fd dead:1:f0::/96 -# ping to .254 should now be excluded from the tunnel -check_xfrm 0 254 +check_exceptions "exceptions" if [ $? -ne 0 ]; then - echo "FAIL: expected ping to .254 to fail" ret=1 -else - echo "PASS: ping to .254 bypassed ipsec tunnel" fi -# ping to .253 should use use ipsec due to direct policy exception. -check_xfrm 1 253 -if [ $? -ne 0 ]; then - echo "FAIL: expected ping to .253 to use ipsec tunnel" - ret=1 -else - echo "PASS: direct policy matches" -fi +# insert block policies with adjacent/overlapping netmasks +do_overlap ns3 -# ping to .2 should use ipsec. -check_xfrm 1 2 +check_exceptions "exceptions and block policies" if [ $? -ne 0 ]; then - echo "FAIL: expected ping to .2 to use ipsec tunnel" ret=1 -else - echo "PASS: policy matches" fi for i in 1 2 3 4;do ip netns del ns$i;done -- 2.17.1