2025-01-13, 10:31:39 +0100, Antonio Quartulli wrote:
> +static int ovpn_nl_attr_sockaddr_remote(struct nlattr **attrs,
> +                                     struct sockaddr_storage *ss)
> +{
> +     struct sockaddr_in6 *sin6;
> +     struct sockaddr_in *sin;
> +     struct in6_addr *in6;
> +     __be16 port = 0;
> +     __be32 *in;
> +     int af;
> +
> +     ss->ss_family = AF_UNSPEC;
> +
> +     if (attrs[OVPN_A_PEER_REMOTE_PORT])
> +             port = nla_get_be16(attrs[OVPN_A_PEER_REMOTE_PORT]);
> +
> +     if (attrs[OVPN_A_PEER_REMOTE_IPV4]) {
> +             af = AF_INET;
> +             ss->ss_family = AF_INET;
> +             in = nla_data(attrs[OVPN_A_PEER_REMOTE_IPV4]);
> +     } else if (attrs[OVPN_A_PEER_REMOTE_IPV6]) {
> +             af = AF_INET6;
> +             ss->ss_family = AF_INET6;
> +             in6 = nla_data(attrs[OVPN_A_PEER_REMOTE_IPV6]);
> +     } else {
> +             return AF_UNSPEC;
> +     }
> +
> +     switch (ss->ss_family) {
> +     case AF_INET6:
> +             /* If this is a regular IPv6 just break and move on,
> +              * otherwise switch to AF_INET and extract the IPv4 accordingly
> +              */
> +             if (!ipv6_addr_v4mapped(in6)) {
> +                     sin6 = (struct sockaddr_in6 *)ss;
> +                     sin6->sin6_port = port;
> +                     memcpy(&sin6->sin6_addr, in6, sizeof(*in6));
> +                     break;
> +             }
> +
> +             /* v4-mapped-v6 address */
> +             ss->ss_family = AF_INET;
> +             in = &in6->s6_addr32[3];
> +             fallthrough;
> +     case AF_INET:
> +             sin = (struct sockaddr_in *)ss;
> +             sin->sin_port = port;
> +             sin->sin_addr.s_addr = *in;
> +             break;
> +     }
> +
> +     /* don't return ss->ss_family as it may have changed in case of
> +      * v4-mapped-v6 address
> +      */

nit: I'm not sure that matters since the only thing the caller checks
is ret != AF_UNSPEC, and at this point, while ss_family could have
been changed, it would have changed from AF_INET6 to AF_INET, so it's
!= AF_UNSPEC.

> +     return af;
> +}

[...]
> +static int ovpn_nl_peer_precheck(struct ovpn_priv *ovpn,
> +                              struct genl_info *info,
> +                              struct nlattr **attrs)
> +{
[...]
> +
> +     /* VPN IPs are needed only in MP mode for selecting the right peer */
> +     if (ovpn->mode == OVPN_MODE_P2P && (attrs[OVPN_A_PEER_VPN_IPV4] ||
> +                                         attrs[OVPN_A_PEER_VPN_IPV6])) {

And in MP mode, at least one VPN_IP* is required?


[...]
>  int ovpn_nl_peer_new_doit(struct sk_buff *skb, struct genl_info *info)
>  {
[...]
> +     /* Only when using UDP as transport protocol the remote endpoint
> +      * can be configured so that ovpn knows where to send packets to.
> +      *
> +      * In case of TCP, the socket is connected to the peer and ovpn
> +      * will just send bytes over it, without the need to specify a
> +      * destination.
> +      */
> +     if (sock->sk->sk_protocol != IPPROTO_UDP &&
> +         (attrs[OVPN_A_PEER_REMOTE_IPV4] ||
> +          attrs[OVPN_A_PEER_REMOTE_IPV6])) {

Is a peer on a UDP socket without any remote (neither
OVPN_A_PEER_REMOTE_IPV4 nor OVPN_A_PEER_REMOTE_IPV6) valid? We just
wait until we get data from it to update the endpoint?

Or should there be a check to make sure that one was provided?

> +             NL_SET_ERR_MSG_FMT_MOD(info->extack,
> +                                    "unexpected remote IP address for non 
> UDP socket");
> +             sockfd_put(sock);
> +             return -EINVAL;
> +     }
> +
> +     ovpn_sock = ovpn_socket_new(sock, peer);
> +     if (IS_ERR(ovpn_sock)) {
> +             NL_SET_ERR_MSG_FMT_MOD(info->extack,
> +                                    "cannot encapsulate socket: %ld",
> +                                    PTR_ERR(ovpn_sock));
> +             sockfd_put(sock);
> +             return -ENOTSOCK;

Maybe s/-ENOTSOCK/PTR_ERR(ovpn_sock)/ ?
Overwriting ovpn_socket_new's -EBUSY etc with -ENOTSOCK is a bit
misleading to the caller.

> +     }
> +
> +     peer->sock = ovpn_sock;
> +
> +     ret = ovpn_nl_peer_modify(peer, info, attrs);
> +     if (ret < 0)
> +             goto peer_release;
> +
> +     ret = ovpn_peer_add(ovpn, peer);
> +     if (ret < 0) {
> +             NL_SET_ERR_MSG_FMT_MOD(info->extack,
> +                                    "cannot add new peer (id=%u) to 
> hashtable: %d\n",
> +                                    peer->id, ret);
> +             goto peer_release;
> +     }
> +
> +     return 0;
> +
> +peer_release:

I think you need to add:

        ovpn_socket_release(peer);

If ovpn_socket_new succeeded, ovpn_peer_release only takes care of the
peer but not its socket.

> +     /* release right away because peer is not used in any context */
> +     ovpn_peer_release(peer);
> +
> +     return ret;
>  }
>  
>  int ovpn_nl_peer_set_doit(struct sk_buff *skb, struct genl_info *info)
>  {
[...]
> +     if (attrs[OVPN_A_PEER_SOCKET]) {
> +             NL_SET_ERR_MSG_FMT_MOD(info->extack,
> +                                    "socket cannot be modified");
> +             return -EINVAL;
> +     }
> +
> +     peer_id = nla_get_u32(attrs[OVPN_A_PEER_ID]);
> +     peer = ovpn_peer_get_by_id(ovpn, peer_id);
> +     if (!peer) {
> +             NL_SET_ERR_MSG_FMT_MOD(info->extack,
> +                                    "cannot find peer with id %u", peer_id);
> +             return -ENOENT;
> +     }

The check for non-UDP socket with a remote address configured should
be replicated here, no?

-- 
Sabrina

Reply via email to