From: Eugene Crosser <crosser@average.org>
To: Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Cc: netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, dsahern@kernel.org,
pablo@netfilter.org, lschlesinger@drivenets.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] vrf: run conntrack only in context of lower/physdev for locally generated packets
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2021 01:03:05 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <dbbc274e-cf69-5207-6ddd-00c435d5a689@average.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20211021144857.29714-3-fw@strlen.de>
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3919 bytes --]
On 21/10/2021 16:48, Florian Westphal wrote:
> The VRF driver invokes netfilter for output+postrouting hooks so that users
> can create rules that check for 'oif $vrf' rather than lower device name.
>
> This is a problem when NAT rules are configured.
>
> To avoid any conntrack involvement in round 1, tag skbs as 'untracked'
> to prevent conntrack from picking them up.
>
> This gets cleared before the packet gets handed to the ip stack so
> conntrack will be active on the second iteration.
>
> For ingress, conntrack has already been done before the packet makes it
> to the vrf driver, with this patch egress does connection tracking with
> lower/physical device as well.
>
> Signed-off-by: Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>
> ---
> drivers/net/vrf.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/vrf.c b/drivers/net/vrf.c
> index bf2fac913942..c813d03159bf 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/vrf.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/vrf.c
> @@ -35,6 +35,7 @@
> #include <net/l3mdev.h>
> #include <net/fib_rules.h>
> #include <net/netns/generic.h>
> +#include <net/netfilter/nf_conntrack.h>
>
> #define DRV_NAME "vrf"
> #define DRV_VERSION "1.1"
> @@ -424,12 +425,26 @@ static int vrf_local_xmit(struct sk_buff *skb, struct net_device *dev,
> return NETDEV_TX_OK;
> }
>
> +static void vrf_nf_set_untracked(struct sk_buff *skb)
> +{
> + if (skb_get_nfct(skb) == 0)
> + nf_ct_set(skb, 0, IP_CT_UNTRACKED);
> +}
> +
> +static void vrf_nf_reset_ct(struct sk_buff *skb)
> +{
> + if (skb_get_nfct(skb) == IP_CT_UNTRACKED)
> + nf_reset_ct(skb);
> +}
> +
Isn't it possible that skb was marked UNTRACKED before entering this path, by a
rule? In such case 'set_untrackd' will do nothing, but 'reset_ct' will clear
UNTRACKED status that was set elswhere. It seems wrong, am I missing something?
> #if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_IPV6)
> static int vrf_ip6_local_out(struct net *net, struct sock *sk,
> struct sk_buff *skb)
> {
> int err;
>
> + vrf_nf_reset_ct(skb);
> +
> err = nf_hook(NFPROTO_IPV6, NF_INET_LOCAL_OUT, net,
> sk, skb, NULL, skb_dst(skb)->dev, dst_output);
>
> @@ -508,6 +523,8 @@ static int vrf_ip_local_out(struct net *net, struct sock *sk,
> {
> int err;
>
> + vrf_nf_reset_ct(skb);
> +
> err = nf_hook(NFPROTO_IPV4, NF_INET_LOCAL_OUT, net, sk,
> skb, NULL, skb_dst(skb)->dev, dst_output);
> if (likely(err == 1))
> @@ -626,8 +643,7 @@ static void vrf_finish_direct(struct sk_buff *skb)
> skb_pull(skb, ETH_HLEN);
> }
>
> - /* reset skb device */
> - nf_reset_ct(skb);
> + vrf_nf_reset_ct(skb);
> }
>
> #if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_IPV6)
> @@ -641,7 +657,7 @@ static int vrf_finish_output6(struct net *net, struct sock *sk,
> struct neighbour *neigh;
> int ret;
>
> - nf_reset_ct(skb);
> + vrf_nf_reset_ct(skb);
>
> skb->protocol = htons(ETH_P_IPV6);
> skb->dev = dev;
> @@ -752,6 +768,8 @@ static struct sk_buff *vrf_ip6_out_direct(struct net_device *vrf_dev,
>
> skb->dev = vrf_dev;
>
> + vrf_nf_set_untracked(skb);
> +
> err = nf_hook(NFPROTO_IPV6, NF_INET_LOCAL_OUT, net, sk,
> skb, NULL, vrf_dev, vrf_ip6_out_direct_finish);
>
> @@ -858,7 +876,7 @@ static int vrf_finish_output(struct net *net, struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *s
> struct neighbour *neigh;
> bool is_v6gw = false;
>
> - nf_reset_ct(skb);
> + vrf_nf_reset_ct(skb);
>
> /* Be paranoid, rather than too clever. */
> if (unlikely(skb_headroom(skb) < hh_len && dev->header_ops)) {
> @@ -980,6 +998,8 @@ static struct sk_buff *vrf_ip_out_direct(struct net_device *vrf_dev,
>
> skb->dev = vrf_dev;
>
> + vrf_nf_set_untracked(skb);
> +
> err = nf_hook(NFPROTO_IPV4, NF_INET_LOCAL_OUT, net, sk,
> skb, NULL, vrf_dev, vrf_ip_out_direct_finish);
>
>
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-10-21 23:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-10-21 14:48 [PATCH net-next 0/2] vrf: rework interaction with netfilter/conntrack Florian Westphal
2021-10-21 14:48 ` [PATCH net-next 1/2] netfilter: conntrack: skip confirmation and nat hooks in postrouting for vrf Florian Westphal
2021-10-21 14:48 ` [PATCH net-next 2/2] vrf: run conntrack only in context of lower/physdev for locally generated packets Florian Westphal
2021-10-21 22:25 ` Jakub Kicinski
2021-10-21 23:03 ` Eugene Crosser [this message]
2021-10-21 23:58 ` Florian Westphal
2021-10-22 0:04 ` Florian Westphal
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=dbbc274e-cf69-5207-6ddd-00c435d5a689@average.org \
--to=crosser@average.org \
--cc=dsahern@kernel.org \
--cc=fw@strlen.de \
--cc=lschlesinger@drivenets.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).