Re: [PATCH net-next v18 20/25] ovpn: implement peer add/get/dump/delete via netlink

2025-01-19, 14:12:05 +0100, Antonio Quartulli wrote:

On 17/01/2025 18:12, Sabrina Dubroca wrote:

quoted

2025-01-17, 13:59:35 +0100, Antonio Quartulli wrote:

quoted

On 17/01/2025 12:48, Sabrina Dubroca wrote:

quoted

2025-01-13, 10:31:39 +0100, Antonio Quartulli wrote:

quoted

   int ovpn_nl_peer_new_doit(struct sk_buff *skb, struct genl_info *info)
   {
-	return -EOPNOTSUPP;
+	struct nlattr *attrs[OVPN_A_PEER_MAX + 1];
+	struct ovpn_priv *ovpn = info->user_ptr[0];
+	struct ovpn_socket *ovpn_sock;
+	struct socket *sock = NULL;
+	struct ovpn_peer *peer;
+	u32 sockfd, peer_id;
+	int ret;
+
+	/* peers can only be added when the interface is up and running */
+	if (!netif_running(ovpn->dev))
+		return -ENETDOWN;

Since we're not under rtnl_lock here, the device could go down while
we're creating this peer, and we may end up with a down device that
has a peer anyway.

hmm, indeed. This means we must hold the rtnl_lock to prevent ending up in
an inconsistent state.

quoted

I'm not sure what this (and the peer flushing on NETDEV_DOWN) is
trying to accomplish. Is it a problem to keep peers when the netdevice
is down?

This is the result of my discussion with Sergey that started in v23 5/23:

https://lore.kernel.org/r/netdev/20241029-b4-ovpn-v11-5-de4698c73a25@openvpn.net/ (local)

The idea was to match operational state with actual connectivity to peer(s).

Originally I wanted to simply kee the carrier always on, but after further
discussion (including the meaning of the openvpn option --persist-tun) we
agreed on following the logic where an UP device has a peer connected (logic
is slightly different between MP and P2P).

I am not extremely happy with the resulting complexity, but it seemed to be
blocker for Sergey.

[after re-reading that discussion with Sergey]

I don't understand why "admin does 'ip link set tun0 down'" means "we
should get rid of all peers. For me the carrier situation goes the
other way: no peer, no carrier (as if I unplugged the cable from my
ethernet card), and it's independent of what the user does (ip link
set XXX up/down). You have that with netif_carrier_{on,off}, but
flushing peers when the admin does "ip link set tun0 down" is separate
IMO.

The reasoning was "the user is asking the VPN to go down - it should be
assumed that from that moment on no VPN traffic whatsoever should flow in
either direction".
Similarly to when you bring an Eth interface dwn - the phy link goes down as
well.

Does it make sense?

I'm not sure. If I turn the ovpn interface down for a second, the
peers are removed. Will they come back when I bring the interface back
up?  That'd have to be done by userspace (which could also watch for
the DOWN events and tell the kernel to flush the peers) - but some of
the peers could have timed out in the meantime.

If I set the VPN interface down, I expect no packets flowing through
that interface (dropping the peers isn't necessary for that), but all
non-data (key exchange etc sent by openvpn's userspace) should still
go through, and IMO peer keepalive fits in that "non-data" category.


What does openvpn currently do if I do
    ip link set tun0 down ; sleep 5 ; ip link set tun0 up
with a tuntap interface?

-- 
Sabrina