Re: [PATCH net-next] ipv6/route: inherit max_sizes from current netns

[Christian Brauner]

On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 07:24:18PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 10:54:21AM -0600, David Ahern wrote:
> > On 5/20/20 8:58 AM, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > > During NorthSec (cf. [1]) a very large number of unprivileged
> > > containers and nested containers are run during the competition to
> > > provide a safe environment for the various teams during the event. Every
> > > year a range of feature requests or bug reports come out of this and
> > > this year's no different.
> > > One of the containers was running a simple VPN server. There were about
> > > 1.5k users connected to this VPN over ipv6 and the container was setup
> > > with about 100 custom routing tables when it hit the max_sizes routing
> > > limit. After this no new connections could be established anymore,
> > > pinging didn't work anymore; you get the idea.
> > > 
> > 
> > should have been addressed by:
> > 
> > commit d8882935fcae28bceb5f6f56f09cded8d36d85e6
> > Author: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Date:   Fri May 8 07:34:14 2020 -0700
> >     ipv6: use DST_NOCOUNT in ip6_rt_pcpu_alloc()
> >     We currently have to adjust ipv6 route gc_thresh/max_size depending
> >     on number of cpus on a server, this makes very little sense.
> > 
> > 
> > Did your tests include this patch?
> 
> No, it's also pretty hard to trigger. The conference was pretty good for
> this.
> I tested on top of rc6. I'm probably missing the big picture here, could
> you briefy explain how this commit fixes the problem we ran into?

Hm, and it'd be great if we could expose the file - even just read-only
- to network namespaces owned by non-initial user namespaces. It doesn't
contain sensitive information and could probably be used to limit
connections etc.

Christian