lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Feb]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH] xfrm: fix handling of XFRM policies mark and mask.
Cc Jamal, he introduced the xfrm_mark framework and knows it
probably the best.

On Sat, Feb 02, 2013 at 06:27:03PM +0100, Romain KUNTZ wrote:
> The current algorithm to insert XFRM policies with a mark and a mask
> allows the insertion of more generic policies, but fails when trying
> to install more specific policies.
>

Hm, I think we will not match always the right policy if we allow both
orders. Lets take your example and assume we have a flow with mark 1.
The policy lookup is a linear search, so we use the first matching
policy. xfrm_policy_match() does the following check on the mark:

if (... || (fl->flowi_mark & pol->mark.m) != pol->mark.v || ...)
return -ESRCH

> For example, executing the below commands in that order succeed:
> ip -6 xfrm policy flush
> ip -6 xfrm policy add src fd00::1/128 dst fd00::2/128 dir out mark 1 mask 0xffffffff
> ip -6 xfrm policy add src fd00::1/128 dst fd00::2/128 dir out

The policy with mark 1 is the first we find. The policy passes the
mark check and if the flow matches the selectors, we use this policy.

>
> But it fails in the reverse order:
> ip -6 xfrm policy flush
> ip -6 xfrm policy add src fd00::1/128 dst fd00::2/128 dir out
> ip -6 xfrm policy add src fd00::1/128 dst fd00::2/128 dir out mark 1 mask 0xffffffff
> RTNETLINK answers: File exists

With this scenario, we would find the policy with mark and mask 0 first.
This policy passes the mark check too. So we would use this policy if the
flow matches the selectors, but the flow asked for a policy with mark 1.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-02-05 10:21    [W:0.061 / U:1.912 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site