Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/1] ipvlan: Initial check-in of the IPVLAN driver.

From: Pavel Emelyanov <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 15:07:18 +0400

>>> +static int ipvlan_link_new(struct net *src_net, struct net_device *dev,
>>> +                        struct nlattr *tb[], struct nlattr *data[])
>>> +{
>>> +     struct ipvl_dev *ipvlan = netdev_priv(dev);
>>> +     struct ipvl_port *port;
>>> +     struct net_device *phy_dev;
>>> +     int err;
>>> +
>>> +     ipvlan_dbg(3, "%s[%d]: Entering...\n", __func__, __LINE__);
>>> +     if (!tb[IFLA_LINK]) {
>>> +             ipvlan_dbg(3, "%s[%d]: Returning -EINVAL...\n",
>>> +                        __func__, __LINE__);
>>> +             return -EINVAL;
>>> +     }
>>> +
>>> +     phy_dev = __dev_get_by_index(src_net, nla_get_u32(tb[IFLA_LINK]));
>>> +     if (phy_dev == NULL) {
>>> +             ipvlan_dbg(3, "%s[%d]: Returning -ENODEV...\n",
>>> +                        __func__, __LINE__);
>>> +             return -ENODEV;
>>> +     }
>>> +
>>> +     /* TODO will someone try creating ipvlan-dev on an ipvlan-virtual dev?*/
>>> +     if (!ipvlan_dev_master(phy_dev)) {
>>> +             err = ipvlan_port_create(phy_dev);
>>> +             if (err < 0) {
>>> +                     ipvlan_dbg(3, "%s[%d]: Returning error (%d)...\n",
>>> +                                __func__, __LINE__, err);
>>> +                     return err;
>>> +             }
>>> +     }
>>> +
>>> +     port = ipvlan_port_get_rtnl(phy_dev);
>>> +     /* Get the mode if specified. */
>>> +     if (data && data[IFLA_IPVLAN_MODE])
>>> +             port->mode = nla_get_u16(data[IFLA_IPVLAN_MODE]);
>>
>> Should the invalid value be checked here? There are places
>> where we BUG() in mode being "unknown".
>>
> Assuming the calls come over netlink, the ".validate" will be called
> before ".newlink", so that would be unnecessary, isn't it?

Yes, you're right. I've missed the validate callback.

>>> +             break;
>>> +
>>
>>> +static int ipvlan_addr4_event(struct notifier_block *unused,
>>> +                           unsigned long event, void *ptr)
>>> +{
>>> +     struct in_ifaddr *if4 = (struct in_ifaddr *)ptr;
>>> +     struct net_device *dev = (struct net_device *)if4->ifa_dev->dev;
>>> +     struct ipvl_dev *ipvlan = netdev_priv(dev);
>>> +     struct in_addr ip4_addr;
>>> +
>>> +     ipvlan_dbg(3, "%s[%d]: Entering...\n", __func__, __LINE__);
>>> +     if (!ipvlan_dev_slave(dev))
>>> +             return NOTIFY_DONE;
>>> +
>>> +     if (!ipvlan || !ipvlan->port)
>>> +             return NOTIFY_DONE;
>>> +
>>> +     switch (event) {
>>> +     case NETDEV_UP:
>>
>> Can it be (in the future) somehow restricted so that net-namespace wouldn't
>> be able to assign arbitrary IP address here? One of the reasons for using
>> such devices is to enforce the container to use the IP address given from
>> the host.
>>
> Probably this could be a config (sysfs?) entry which would lockup the
> config coming from ns when set. So code could look like -
>           case NETDEV_UP:
>                          if (!restrict_ns_config) {
>                             ...
>                          }
>                          break;

Maybe introduce some "lock" call for ipvlan device after which no new IP addresses
can be assigned? And the configuration would look like

1. create ipvlan
2. move to proper net namespace
3. add addresses
4. lock

?

Thanks,
Pavel