Hi Xiao and thanks for chiming in,
On 11/12/2024 04:08, Xiao Liang wrote:
On Mon, Dec 9, 2024 at 6:48 PM Antonio Quartulli <antonio@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]
+/**
+ * ovpn_nl_peer_modify - modify the peer attributes according to the incoming msg
+ * @peer: the peer to modify
+ * @info: generic netlink info from the user request
+ * @attrs: the attributes from the user request
+ *
+ * Return: a negative error code in case of failure, 0 on success or 1 on
+ * success and the VPN IPs have been modified (requires rehashing in MP
+ * mode)
+ */
+static int ovpn_nl_peer_modify(struct ovpn_peer *peer, struct genl_info *info,
+ struct nlattr **attrs)
+{
+ struct sockaddr_storage ss = {};
+ struct ovpn_socket *ovpn_sock;
+ u32 sockfd, interv, timeout;
+ struct socket *sock = NULL;
+ u8 *local_ip = NULL;
+ bool rehash = false;
+ int ret;
+
+ if (attrs[OVPN_A_PEER_SOCKET]) {
Similar to link attributes in other tunnel drivers (e.g. IFLA_GRE_LINK,
IFLA_GRE_FWMARK), user-supplied sockets could have sockopts
(e.g. oif, fwmark, TOS). Since some of them may affect encapsulation
and routing decision, which are supported in datapath? And do we need
some validation here?
Thanks for pointing this out.
At the moment ovpn doesn't expect any specific socket option.
I haven't investigated how they could be used and what effect they would
have on the packet processing.
This is something we may consider later.
At this point, do you still think I should add a check here of some sort?
[...]
+static int ovpn_nl_send_peer(struct sk_buff *skb, const struct genl_info *info,
+ const struct ovpn_peer *peer, u32 portid, u32 seq,
+ int flags)
+{
+ const struct ovpn_bind *bind;
+ struct nlattr *attr;
+ void *hdr;
+
+ hdr = genlmsg_put(skb, portid, seq, &ovpn_nl_family, flags,
+ OVPN_CMD_PEER_GET);
+ if (!hdr)
+ return -ENOBUFS;
+
+ attr = nla_nest_start(skb, OVPN_A_PEER);
+ if (!attr)
+ goto err;
+
+ if (nla_put_u32(skb, OVPN_A_PEER_ID, peer->id))
+ goto err;
+
I think it would be helpful to include the netns ID and supported sockopts
of the peer socket in peer info message.
Technically the netns is the same as where the openvpn process in
userspace is running, because it'll be it to open the socket and pass it
down to ovpn.
Therefore I am not sure there is any value in echoing back the netns ID.
Wouldn't you agree?
Regarding sockopts, as mentioned above, this is somewhat unsupported for
now, so I Am not sure we have anything to send back.
Regards,
--
Antonio Quartulli
OpenVPN Inc.
