[WireGuard] [PATCH v3] ip6_output: ensure flow saddr actually belongs to device

David Ahern dsa at cumulusnetworks.com
Mon Nov 14 18:17:32 CET 2016

On 11/14/16 10:04 AM, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> On 14.11.2016 17:55, David Ahern wrote:
>> On 11/14/16 9:44 AM, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
>>> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016, at 00:28, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
>>>> This puts the IPv6 routing functions in parity with the IPv4 routing
>>>> functions. Namely, we now check in v6 that if a flowi6 requests an
>>>> saddr, the returned dst actually corresponds to a net device that has
>>>> that saddr. This mirrors the v4 logic with __ip_dev_find in
>>>> __ip_route_output_key_hash. In the event that the returned dst is not
>>>> for a dst with a dev that has the saddr, we return -EINVAL, just like
>>>> v4; this makes it easy to use the same error handlers for both cases.
>>>> Signed-off-by: Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason at zx2c4.com>
>>>> Cc: David Ahern <dsa at cumulusnetworks.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> Changes from v2:
>>>>     It turns out ipv6_chk_addr already has the device enumeration
>>>>     logic that we need by simply passing NULL.
>>>>  net/ipv6/ip6_output.c | 4 ++++
>>>>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>>>> diff --git a/net/ipv6/ip6_output.c b/net/ipv6/ip6_output.c
>>>> index 6001e78..b3b5cb6 100644
>>>> --- a/net/ipv6/ip6_output.c
>>>> +++ b/net/ipv6/ip6_output.c
>>>> @@ -926,6 +926,10 @@ static int ip6_dst_lookup_tail(struct net *net,
>>>> const struct sock *sk,
>>>>  	int err;
>>>>  	int flags = 0;
>>>> +       if (!ipv6_addr_any(&fl6->saddr) &&
>>>> +           !ipv6_chk_addr(net, &fl6->saddr, NULL, 1))
>>>> +               return -EINVAL;
>>> Hmm, this check is too permissive, no?
>>> E.g. what happens if you move a link local address from one interface to
>>> another? In this case this code would still allow the saddr to be used.
>> This check -- like the ipv4 variant -- only verifies the saddr is locally assigned. If the address moves interfaces it should be fine.
> But in this case we should actually bail out, no?
> Let's say, user assumes we are on ifindex eth0 with LL address from
> eth0. Suddenly the LL address from eth0 is moved to eth1, we can't
> accept this source address anymore and need to return -EINVAL, too.

so you mean if rt6_need_strict(&fl6->saddr) then the dev needs to be considered.

>>> I just also quickly read up on the history (sorry was travelling last
>>> week) and wonder if you ever saw a user space facing bug or if this is
>>> basically some difference you saw while writing out of tree code?
>> I checked the userspace API this morning. bind and cmsg for example check that the address is valid with calls to ipv6_chk_addr.
> Hmm, so it fixes no real bug.
> Because of translations of flowi6_oif we actually can't do a correct
> check of source address for cases like the one I outlined above? Hmm,
> maybe we should simply depend on user space checks.

I believe Jason's case is forwarding path and the ipv6_stub->ipv6_dst_lookup API.

More information about the WireGuard mailing list