[PATCH] net: Prefer non link-local source addresses

Section 2.6.1 of RFC 3927 specifies that if link-local and routable addresses
are available on an interface, a routable address is preferred.  Update the
IPv4 source address selection algorithm to use a 169.254.x.x address only if
another matching address is not found.

Tested combinations of configured IP addresses with and without link-local to
verify a link-local address was chosen only if no routable address was
present.

Signed-off-by: Jeff Harris <redacted>
---
 net/ipv4/devinet.c |   18 ++++++++++++++++--
 1 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/ipv4/devinet.c b/net/ipv4/devinet.c
index bc19bd0..70ddf37 100644
--- a/net/ipv4/devinet.c
+++ b/net/ipv4/devinet.c

@@ -965,6 +965,8 @@ out:
 __be32 inet_select_addr(const struct net_device *dev, __be32 dst, int scope)
 {
 	__be32 addr = 0;
+	__be32 lladdr = 0;
+	__be32 firstaddr = 0;
 	struct in_device *in_dev;
 	struct net *net = dev_net(dev);
 

@@ -977,15 +979,27 @@ __be32 inet_select_addr(const struct net_device *dev, __be32 dst, int scope)
 		if (ifa->ifa_scope > scope)
 			continue;
 		if (!dst || inet_ifa_match(dst, ifa)) {
+			if (ipv4_is_linklocal_169(ifa->ifa_address)) {
+				lladdr = ifa->ifa_local;
+				continue;
+			}
 			addr = ifa->ifa_local;
 			break;
 		}
-		if (!addr)
-			addr = ifa->ifa_local;
+		if (!firstaddr)
+			firstaddr = ifa->ifa_local;
 	} endfor_ifa(in_dev);
 
 	if (addr)
 		goto out_unlock;
+	if (lladdr) {
+		addr = lladdr;
+		goto out_unlock;
+	}
+	if (firstaddr) {
+		addr = firstaddr;
+		goto out_unlock;
+	}
 no_in_dev:
 
 	/* Not loopback addresses on loopback should be preferred

-- 
1.7.0.5

On Thu, Sep 01, 2011 at 04:20:54PM -0400, Jeff Harris wrote:

Section 2.6.1 of RFC 3927 specifies that if link-local and routable addresses
are available on an interface, a routable address is preferred.  Update the
IPv4 source address selection algorithm to use a 169.254.x.x address only if
another matching address is not found.

IP addresses have a scope field:
# ip -4 a l eth0                                   
2: eth0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast state UP qlen 1000
    inet 10.0.0.1/24 brd 10.0.0.255 scope link eth0
    inet 172.22.80.50/25 brd 172.22.80.127 scope global eth0

would it not make sense to use to use that field instead?


-David

	Hello,

On Thu, 1 Sep 2011, Jeff Harris wrote:

Section 2.6.1 of RFC 3927 specifies that if link-local and routable addresses
are available on an interface, a routable address is preferred.  Update the
IPv4 source address selection algorithm to use a 169.254.x.x address only if
another matching address is not found.

Tested combinations of configured IP addresses with and without link-local to
verify a link-local address was chosen only if no routable address was
present.

	As David Lamparter already said, isn't the scope value
suitable for this purpose? Eg.
ip addr add 169.254.5.5/16 brd + dev eth0 scope link

	iproute2 already has function default_scope() in
ip/ipaddress.c that assigns scope if it is not specified
while adding address. May be we can add RT_SCOPE_LINK for
169.254 there?

	Another such place is inet_set_ifa() in
net/ipv4/devinet.c where we can assign scope, so that
ifconfig works too.

	I see also that net/ipv6/addrconf.c (sit_add_v4_addrs)
avoids link-local addresses. What I mean is that the scope
can be checked at many places and it is a mechanism that
already works.

	As result, we will not complicate inet_select_addr.

Regards

--
Julian Anastasov [off-list ref]

In this case, the address scope values are being set properly.  The link-local address has link scope and the routable address has global scope.  When the inet_select_addr function is called, the dst address is 0 and the scope is 253 (link scope).  So, in this case, both address could match.  It just happens that the link local address is first in the list for the device.

This condition looks to be arising from the use of interface routes on our device (e.g. ip route add default dev eth0).  The routes are being installed with link scope.  Forcing a scope of global causes a scope of 0 in inet_select_addr which then selects the routable address always.  I have not found any definite documentation on whether local or global should be used for the route, but the default behavior of the 'ip' command is to use link scope on these routes and global on routes with a gateway address. 

Also, I have only been able to test against 2.6.33 which we use on our embedded device.  It is not easy to update to a more recent version.  The patch, though, applied cleanly to the latest stable version.

Jeff

-----Original Message-----
From: Julian Anastasov [mailto:ja@ssi.bg] 
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 6:15 PM
To: Harris, Jeff
Cc: David S. Miller; Alexey Kuznetsov; James Morris; Hideaki YOSHIFUJI; Patrick McHardy; netdev@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: Prefer non link-local source addresses


	Hello,

On Thu, 1 Sep 2011, Jeff Harris wrote:

Section 2.6.1 of RFC 3927 specifies that if link-local and routable addresses
are available on an interface, a routable address is preferred.  Update the
IPv4 source address selection algorithm to use a 169.254.x.x address only if
another matching address is not found.

Tested combinations of configured IP addresses with and without link-local to
verify a link-local address was chosen only if no routable address was
present.

	As David Lamparter already said, isn't the scope value
suitable for this purpose? Eg.
ip addr add 169.254.5.5/16 brd + dev eth0 scope link

	iproute2 already has function default_scope() in
ip/ipaddress.c that assigns scope if it is not specified
while adding address. May be we can add RT_SCOPE_LINK for
169.254 there?

	Another such place is inet_set_ifa() in
net/ipv4/devinet.c where we can assign scope, so that
ifconfig works too.

	I see also that net/ipv6/addrconf.c (sit_add_v4_addrs)
avoids link-local addresses. What I mean is that the scope
can be checked at many places and it is a mechanism that
already works.

	As result, we will not complicate inet_select_addr.

Regards

--
Julian Anastasov [off-list ref]

	Hello,

On Tue, 6 Sep 2011, Harris, Jeff wrote:

In this case, the address scope values are being set properly.  The link-local address has link scope and the routable address has global scope.  When the inet_select_addr function is called, the dst address is 0 and the scope is 253 (link scope).  So, in this case, both address could match.  It just happens that the link local address is first in the list for the device.

	Yes, all primary addresses are sorted in decreasing
scope, link before global. For non-gatewayed routes (nh_gw=0)
inet_select_addr always selects the first address with
scope <= the route's scope.

This condition looks to be arising from the use of interface routes on our device (e.g. ip route add default dev eth0).  The routes are being installed with link scope.  Forcing a scope of global causes a scope of 0 in inet_select_addr which then selects the routable address always.  I have not found any definite documentation on whether local or global should be used for the route, but the default behavior of the 'ip' command is to use link scope on these routes and global on routes with a gateway address. 

	It is not good idea to have scope link for default route
if you plan to contact the world because link routes can
select link addresses for the target network. That is what
you see as a problem. May be ip route should use scope
global as default value for route 0.0.0.0/0.

	You have 2 choices:

1. Preferred: Use global scope for the default route:

ip route add default scope global dev eth0
or
ip route add default nexthop dev eth0 (not recommended)

	Global routes will not select link addresses.

2. Specify prefsrc for the route

ip route add default dev eth0 src <Global_IP>

	but you risk to cause problems for MSG_DONTROUTE users if
scope remains 'link' for target addresses that are not really
onlink.

Also, I have only been able to test against 2.6.33 which we use on our embedded device.  It is not easy to update to a more recent version.  The patch, though, applied cleanly to the latest stable version.

Jeff

-----Original Message-----
From: Julian Anastasov [mailto:ja@ssi.bg] 
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 6:15 PM
To: Harris, Jeff
Cc: David S. Miller; Alexey Kuznetsov; James Morris; Hideaki YOSHIFUJI; Patrick McHardy; netdev@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: Prefer non link-local source addresses


	Hello,

On Thu, 1 Sep 2011, Jeff Harris wrote:

quoted

Section 2.6.1 of RFC 3927 specifies that if link-local and routable addresses
are available on an interface, a routable address is preferred.  Update the
IPv4 source address selection algorithm to use a 169.254.x.x address only if
another matching address is not found.

Tested combinations of configured IP addresses with and without link-local to
verify a link-local address was chosen only if no routable address was
present.

	As David Lamparter already said, isn't the scope value
suitable for this purpose? Eg.
ip addr add 169.254.5.5/16 brd + dev eth0 scope link

	iproute2 already has function default_scope() in
ip/ipaddress.c that assigns scope if it is not specified
while adding address. May be we can add RT_SCOPE_LINK for
169.254 there?

	Another such place is inet_set_ifa() in
net/ipv4/devinet.c where we can assign scope, so that
ifconfig works too.

	I see also that net/ipv6/addrconf.c (sit_add_v4_addrs)
avoids link-local addresses. What I mean is that the scope
can be checked at many places and it is a mechanism that
already works.

	As result, we will not complicate inet_select_addr.

Regards

--
Julian Anastasov [off-list ref]