From: Alexandre Ferrieux <alexandre.ferrieux@gmail.com>
To: Alexandre Ferrieux <alexandre.ferrieux@gmail.com>,
Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org>
Cc: coreteam@netfilter.org, netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org,
edumazet@google.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] netfilter: nf_dup_netdev: scrub duplicates to preserve the direct path
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2026 01:19:07 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <64228e38-b619-4836-aa41-1594567db082@orange.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7b7fbe75-1531-49f9-8134-033c34fa13cb@orange.com>
Hi,
>> On Tue, Aug 04, 2026 at 10:11:50PM +0200, Alexandre Ferrieux wrote:
>>>
>>> In other words, the "dup" path has the potential to wreak havoc
>>> in the direct path as a consequence of secondary link failures. This
>>> is very bad behavior for a monitoring tool, which is the most
>>> obvious application of 'dup'.
>>
>> Can you describe your use-case a bit and how it breaks?
> Sure:
>
> - assume hosts A.eth0 and B.eth0 have active production traffic (say TCP)
> - assume we have a monitoring tool on A that dups eth0's egress to some other
> interface $MON
>
> nft add chain netdev ta ch '{type filter hook egress device "eth0" priority
> filter ; policy accept ; }'
> nft add rule netdev ta ch dup to $MON
>
> - assume something goes wrong on $MON generating link failures. In my case it
> was a GRETAP with L3 destination suddenly unreachable.
>
> - The next A->B packet goes through normally, but its duplicate hits
> ipv4_link_failure(), hence the dst (which is B) is expired.
>
> - As a result, (say) TCP disruptions occur. The thermometer killed the patient :)
>
> Note: as a straightforward repro, you can simply witness "noise" in simple ping
> sessions, with ghost unreach reports muxed with normal measurement:
>
> ip link add gre1 type gretap remote 192.168.1.99 ;# on the LAN, nonexistent
> IP => will generate link failures
> ip link set dev gre1 up
> nft add table netdev ta
> nft add chain netdev ta ch '{type filter hook egress device "eth0" priority
> filter ; policy accept ; }'
> nft add rule netdev ta ch counter dup to gre1
> ping -n 8.8.8.8
> =>
> PING 8.8.8.8 (8.8.8.8) 56(84) bytes of data.
> 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=1 ttl=115 time=19.9 ms
> 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=2 ttl=115 time=12.8 ms
> 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=3 ttl=115 time=36.0 ms
> 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=4 ttl=115 time=30.3 ms
> From 192.168.1.13 icmp_seq=5 Destination Host Unreachable
> 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=5 ttl=115 time=31.0 ms
> From 192.168.1.13 icmp_seq=6 Destination Host Unreachable
> 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=6 ttl=115 time=38.0 ms
> From 192.168.1.13 icmp_seq=7 Destination Host Unreachable
> 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=7 ttl=115 time=36.8 ms
> From 192.168.1.13 icmp_seq=8 Destination Host Unreachable
> 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=8 ttl=115 time=23.5 ms
> ^C
>
>
>>
>>> This patch fixes all similar scenarii by calling skb_scrub_pkt()
>>> on the clone, severing its link to precious direct-path state.
>>
>> This patch is targetted at the net tree, but nf.git is preferred.
> Okay, will retarget :)
>
>> As for the conntrack and dst, you have to explain what it breaks on
>> your end.
> Dst as shown above. Conntrack is more speculation, but my take is that in any
> case the dup path should *never* have any kind of retroaction on the observed
> path, so any "complex state" attached to the direct path should be absolutely
> isolated from "whatever happens on the dup path". Am I mistaken ?
What do you think ? Is the description of the problem satisfactory ? Is the
proposed solution acceptable ?
-Alex
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-11 23:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-04 20:11 [PATCH net] netfilter: nf_dup_netdev: scrub duplicates to preserve the direct path Alexandre Ferrieux
2026-08-05 8:24 ` Pablo Neira Ayuso
2026-08-05 9:02 ` Alexandre Ferrieux
2026-08-11 23:19 ` Alexandre Ferrieux [this message]
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=64228e38-b619-4836-aa41-1594567db082@orange.com \
--to=alexandre.ferrieux@gmail.com \
--cc=coreteam@netfilter.org \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pablo@netfilter.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