[PATCH net] net: fib_rules: bring back rule_exists to match rule during add
From: Roopa Prabhu <hidden>
Date: 2018-06-29 21:32:20
From: Roopa Prabhu <redacted>
After commit f9d4b0c1e969 ("fib_rules: move common handling of newrule
delrule msgs into fib_nl2rule"), rule_exists got replaced by rule_find
for existing rule lookup in both the add and del paths. While this
is good for the delete path, it solves a few problems but opens up
a few invalid key matches in the add path.
$ip -4 rule add table main tos 10 fwmark 1
$ip -4 rule add table main tos 10
RTNETLINK answers: File exists
The problem here is rule_find does not check if the key masks in
the new and old rule are the same and hence ends up matching a more
secific rule. Rule key masks cannot be easily compared today without
an elaborate if-else block. Its best to introduce key masks for easier
and accurate rule comparison in the future. Until then, due to fear of
regressions this patch re-introduces older loose rule_exists during add.
Also fixes both rule_exists and rule_find to cover missing attributes.
Fixes: f9d4b0c1e969 ("fib_rules: move common handling of newrule delrule msgs into fib_nl2rule")
Signed-off-by: Roopa Prabhu <redacted>
---
This does bring back old problems with rule_exists. But at this hour, old problems
are better than new problems!. The pref compare in rule_exists can be fixed, but its best
done in net-next. I will look at adding more coverage in fib rule selftests. Thanks.
net/core/fib_rules.c | 72 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 71 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/net/core/fib_rules.c b/net/core/fib_rules.c
index bc8425d..f64aa13 100644
--- a/net/core/fib_rules.c
+++ b/net/core/fib_rules.c@@ -444,6 +444,9 @@ static struct fib_rule *rule_find(struct fib_rules_ops *ops, if (rule->ip_proto && r->ip_proto != rule->ip_proto) continue; + if (rule->proto && r->proto != rule->proto) + continue; + if (fib_rule_port_range_set(&rule->sport_range) && !fib_rule_port_range_compare(&r->sport_range, &rule->sport_range))
@@ -653,6 +656,73 @@ static int fib_nl2rule(struct sk_buff *skb, struct nlmsghdr *nlh, return err; } +static int rule_exists(struct fib_rules_ops *ops, struct fib_rule_hdr *frh, + struct nlattr **tb, struct fib_rule *rule) +{ + struct fib_rule *r; + + list_for_each_entry(r, &ops->rules_list, list) { + if (r->action != rule->action) + continue; + + if (r->table != rule->table) + continue; + + if (r->pref != rule->pref) + continue; + + if (memcmp(r->iifname, rule->iifname, IFNAMSIZ)) + continue; + + if (memcmp(r->oifname, rule->oifname, IFNAMSIZ)) + continue; + + if (r->mark != rule->mark) + continue; + + if (r->suppress_ifgroup != rule->suppress_ifgroup) + continue; + + if (r->suppress_prefixlen != rule->suppress_prefixlen) + continue; + + if (r->mark_mask != rule->mark_mask) + continue; + + if (r->tun_id != rule->tun_id) + continue; + + if (r->fr_net != rule->fr_net) + continue; + + if (r->l3mdev != rule->l3mdev) + continue; + + if (!uid_eq(r->uid_range.start, rule->uid_range.start) || + !uid_eq(r->uid_range.end, rule->uid_range.end)) + continue; + + if (r->ip_proto != rule->ip_proto) + continue; + + if (r->proto != rule->proto) + continue; + + if (!fib_rule_port_range_compare(&r->sport_range, + &rule->sport_range)) + continue; + + if (!fib_rule_port_range_compare(&r->dport_range, + &rule->dport_range)) + continue; + + if (!ops->compare(r, frh, tb)) + continue; + return 1; + } + return 0; +} + int fib_nl_newrule(struct sk_buff *skb, struct nlmsghdr *nlh, struct netlink_ext_ack *extack) {
@@ -687,7 +757,7 @@ int fib_nl_newrule(struct sk_buff *skb, struct nlmsghdr *nlh, goto errout; if ((nlh->nlmsg_flags & NLM_F_EXCL) && - rule_find(ops, frh, tb, rule, user_priority)) { + rule_exists(ops, frh, tb, rule)) { err = -EEXIST; goto errout_free; }
--
2.1.4