On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 9:25 PM, Steffen Klassert
<steffen.klass...@secunet.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 09:58:48AM -0700, Jonathan Basseri 😶 wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 12:04 AM, Steffen Klassert
>> <steffen.klass...@secunet.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 06:18:55PM -0700, Jonathan Basseri wrote:
>> > > If a socket has a valid dst cache, then xfrm_lookup_route will get
>> > > skipped. However, the cache is not invalidated when applying policy to a
>> > > socket (i.e. IPV6_XFRM_POLICY). The result is that new policies are
>> > > sometimes ignored on those sockets. (Note: This was broken for IPv4 and
>> > > IPv6 at different times.)
>> > >
>> > > This can be demonstrated like so,
>> > > 1. Create UDP socket.
>> > > 2. connect() the socket.
>> > > 3. Apply an outbound XFRM policy to the socket.
>> > > 4. send() data on the socket.
>> > >
>> > > Packets will continue to be sent in the clear instead of matching an
>> > > xfrm or returning a no-match error (EAGAIN). This affects calls to
>> > > send() and not sendto().
>> > >
>> > > Invalidating the sk_dst_cache is necessary to correctly apply xfrm
>> > > policies. Since we do this in xfrm_user_policy(), the sk_lock was
>> > > already acquired in either do_ip_setsockopt() or do_ipv6_setsockopt(),
>> > > and we may call __sk_dst_reset().
>> > >
>> > > Performance impact should be negligible, since this code is only called
>> > > when changing xfrm policy, and only affects the socket in question.
>> > >
>> > > Note: Creating normal XFRM policies should have a similar effect on
>> > > sk_dst_cache entries that match the policy, but that is not fixed in
>> > > this patch.
>> >
>> > I think we don't have this problem with 'normal' policies. When
>> > inserting such a policy, we bump the IPv4/IPv6 genid. This should
>> > invalidate all cached dst entries, no?
>> >
>> That sounds reasonable to me. I had not confirmed the behavior for
>> normal policies, so I was trying to point out that this fix is only
>> for socket policies. Should I modify the commit message?
>
> Yes, please do so. This comment may lead people to the wrong direction.
>
> Thanks!
Thank you for the feedback. Sending a v2 patch with updated message.
