Re: [PATCH v2] IPv6: sr: Fix End.X nexthop to use oif.

[Ahmed Abdelsalam]

We are submitting the patch for End.DT4. End.DX4 is already there. 

So the optional parameter and OIF applies directly to End.X/End.DX6/End.DX4.
 

On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 11:28:29 +0200
Ahmed Abdelsalam <ahabdels.dev@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Jakub, Reji, 
> 
> Andrea (CC'ed) and I have been working on a patch that could solve this issue. 
> The patch allows to provide optional parameters to when SRv6 behavior. 
> The OIF can be provided as an optional parameter when configuring SRv6 End.X, 
> End.DX6 or End.DX4 (we are submiting in the next couple of days to support End.DX4). 
> 
> We can submit the optional parameter again. Then Reji can leverage this to provide OIF
> as an optional parameters. 
> 
> Would you agree ? 
> 
> Thanks 
> Ahmed 
>  
> 
> 
> On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 09:25:12 +0530
> Reji Thomas <rejithomas.d@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Please find my replies inline below.
> > 
> > Regards
> > Reji
> > 
> > On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 4:31 AM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 13:51:19 +0530 Reji Thomas wrote:
> > > > Currently End.X action doesn't consider the outgoing interface
> > > > while looking up the nexthop.This breaks packet path functionality
> > > > specifically while using link local address as the End.X nexthop.
> > > > The patch fixes this by enforcing End.X action to have both nh6 and
> > > > oif and using oif in lookup.It seems this is a day one issue.
> > > >
> > > > Fixes: 140f04c33bbc ("ipv6: sr: implement several seg6local actions")
> > > > Signed-off-by: Reji Thomas <rejithomas@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > David, Mathiey - any comments?
> > >
> > > > @@ -239,6 +250,8 @@ static int input_action_end(struct sk_buff *skb, struct seg6_local_lwt *slwt)
> > > >  static int input_action_end_x(struct sk_buff *skb, struct seg6_local_lwt *slwt)
> > > >  {
> > > >       struct ipv6_sr_hdr *srh;
> > > > +     struct net_device *odev;
> > > > +     struct net *net = dev_net(skb->dev);
> > >
> > > Order longest to shortest.
> > Sorry. Will fix it.
> > 
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >       srh = get_and_validate_srh(skb);
> > > >       if (!srh)
> > > > @@ -246,7 +259,11 @@ static int input_action_end_x(struct sk_buff *skb, struct seg6_local_lwt *slwt)
> > > >
> > > >       advance_nextseg(srh, &ipv6_hdr(skb)->daddr);
> > > >
> > > > -     seg6_lookup_nexthop(skb, &slwt->nh6, 0);
> > > > +     odev = dev_get_by_index_rcu(net, slwt->oif);
> > > > +     if (!odev)
> > > > +             goto drop;
> > >
> > > Are you doing this lookup just to make sure that oif exists?
> > > Looks a little wasteful for fast path, but more importantly
> > > it won't be backward compatible, right? See below..
> > >
> > Please see reply below.
> > 
> > > > +
> > > > +     seg6_strict_lookup_nexthop(skb, &slwt->nh6, odev->ifindex, 0);
> > > >
> > > >       return dst_input(skb);
> > > >
> > >
> > > > @@ -566,7 +583,8 @@ static struct seg6_action_desc seg6_action_table[] = {
> > > >       },
> > > >       {
> > > >               .action         = SEG6_LOCAL_ACTION_END_X,
> > > > -             .attrs          = (1 << SEG6_LOCAL_NH6),
> > > > +             .attrs          = ((1 << SEG6_LOCAL_NH6) |
> > > > +                                (1 << SEG6_LOCAL_OIF)),
> > > >               .input          = input_action_end_x,
> > > >       },
> > > >       {
> > >
> > > If you set this parse_nla_action() will reject all
> > > SEG6_LOCAL_ACTION_END_X without OIF.
> > >
> > > As you say the OIF is only required for using link local addresses,
> > > so this change breaks perfectly legitimate configurations.
> > >
> > > Can we instead only warn about the missing OIF, and only do that when
> > > nh is link local?
> > >
> > End.X is defined as an adjacency-sid and is used to select a specific link to a
> > neighbor for both global and link-local addresses. The intention was
> > to drop the
> > packet even for global addresses if the route via the specific
> > interface is not found.
> > Alternatively(believe semantically correct for End.X definition) I
> > could do a neighbor lookup
> > for nexthop address over specific interface and send the packet out.
> > 
> > > Also doesn't SEG6_LOCAL_ACTION_END_DX6 need a similar treatment?
> > 
> > Yes. I will update the patch for End.DX6 based on the patch finalized for End.X.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Ahmed Abdelsalam <ahabdels.dev@xxxxxxxxx>


-- 
Ahmed Abdelsalam <ahabdels.dev@xxxxxxxxx>