[libvirt] [PATCH-v4.2] Support for static routes on a virtual bridge

[Laine Stump]

(I wanted a separate message to comment on this part...)

On 04/26/2013 07:22 PM, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
> +/* add an IP (static) route to a bridge */
> +static int
> +networkAddRouteToBridge(virNetworkObjPtr network,
> +                        virNetworkRouteDefPtr routedef)
> +{
> +    bool done = false;
> +    int prefix = 0;
> +    virSocketAddrPtr addr = &routedef->address;
> +    virSocketAddrPtr mask = &routedef->netmask;
> +
> +    if (VIR_SOCKET_ADDR_IS_FAMILY(addr, AF_INET)) {
> +        long val4 = ntohl(addr->data.inet4.sin_addr.s_addr);
> +        long msk4 = -1;
> +        if  (VIR_SOCKET_ADDR_IS_FAMILY(mask, AF_INET)) {
> +            msk4 = ntohl(mask->data.inet4.sin_addr.s_addr);
> +        }
> +        if (msk4 == -1) {
> +            if (val4 == 0 && routedef->prefix == 0)
> +                done = true;
> +        } else {
> +            if (val4 == 0 && msk4 == 0)
> +                done = true;
> +        }
> +    }

I'll try and decode this...

  if ((address == 0.0.0.0)
      and ((((netmask is unspecified) and (prefix is (0 or unspecified)))
           or (netmask is 0.0.0.0)))

     then use 0 for prefix when adding the route

Is that correct?

First - I would like to avoid references to the internal data structures
of a virSocketAddr, and calling ntohnl at this level. virSocketAddr
should be able to handle any bit twiddling we need.

Now, let's see how much of that we can get rid of:

1) If netmask is 0.0.0.0, virSocketAddrGetIpPrefix will anyway return
virSocketAddrGetNumNetmaskBits(0.0.0.0), which is conveniently 0.


2) if neither netmask nor prefix is specified, virSocketAddrGetIpPrefix
will return 0 anyway (regardless of address), *but only if address
wasn't specified*. If an address *was* specified and it was 0.0.0.0, it
returns 8 (treating it as a Class A network)

I had actually intended that my modification to
virSocketAddrGetIpPrefix() to return
0 would eliminate the need for such code in bridge_driver.c, but didn't
do it quite right, and it's just as well, because I just checked and
RFCs say that there *is* some valid use for 0.0.0.0/8.



> +    else if (VIR_SOCKET_ADDR_IS_FAMILY(addr, AF_INET6)) {
> +        int i, val6 = 0;
> +        for (i = 0;i < 4;i++) {
> +            val6 += ((addr->data.inet6.sin6_addr.s6_addr[2 * i] << 8) |
> +                     addr->data.inet6.sin6_addr.s6_addr[2 * i + 1]);
> +        }
> +        if (val6 == 0 && routedef->prefix == 0) {
> +            char *addr = virSocketAddrFormat(&routedef->address);
> +            virReportError(VIR_ERR_INTERNAL_ERROR,
> +                           _("bridge '%s' has prefix=0 for address='%s' which is not supported"),
> +                           network->def->bridge, addr);
> +            VIR_FREE(addr);
> +            return -1;
> +        }
> +    }


and here - if the address is 0 and the prefix is 0/unspecified, then log
an error. But if this is really something that's always illegal
according to the IPv6 RFCs, then we can/should do that validation in the
parser, not here.


> +
> +    if (done) {
> +        prefix = 0;
> +    } else {
> +        prefix = virSocketAddrGetIpPrefix(&routedef->address,
> +                                          &routedef->netmask,
> +                                          routedef->prefix);
> +
> +        if (prefix < 0) {
> +            virReportError(VIR_ERR_INTERNAL_ERROR,
> +                           _("bridge '%s' has an invalid netmask or IP address for route definition"),
> +                           network->def->bridge);
> +            return -1;
> +        }
> +    }
> +
> +    if (virNetDevSetGateway(network->def->bridge,
> +                            &routedef->address,
> +                            prefix,
> +                            &routedef->gateway) < 0)
> +        return -1;
> +    return 0;
> +}
>


So here's my opinion:

1) remove all that code above (I did that in my interdiff to your patch)

2) Make a new patch that adds something like this:


    virSocketAddr zero;

    /* this creates an all-0 address of the appropriate family */
    ignore_value(virSocketAddrParse(&zero,
                                    (VIR_SOCKET_ADDR_IS_FAMILY(addr,AF_INET)
                                     ? "0.0.0.0" : "::"),
                                    VIR_SOCKET_ADDR_FAMILY(addr));

    if (routedef->prefix ||
        VIR_SOCKET_ADDR_IS_FAMILY(mask, AF_INET) ||
        virSocketAddrEqual(addr, zero)) {
        prefix = virSocketAddrGetIpPrefix(addr, mask, routedef->prefix);
    } else {
        /* neither specified. check for a match with an address of all
0's */
        if (virSocketAddrEqual(addr, zero))
            prefix = 0;
        else
            prefix = virSocketAddrGetIpPrefix(addr, mask, routedef->prefix);
    }

            virReportError(VIR_ERR_INTERNAL_ERROR,
                           _("bridge '%s' has prefix=0 for address='%s' which is not supported"),
                           network->def->bridge, addr);

               
            }
        } else {
            /* no prefix given, but address was non-zero, so get default
prefix */
            prefix = virSocketAddrGetIpPrefix(addr, mask, routedef->prefix);
        }
    }

    if (prefix < 0) {
        virReportError(VIR_ERR_INTERNAL_ERROR,
                       _("bridge '%s' has an invalid netmask or IP address for route definition"),
                       network->def->bridge);
        return -1;
    }

    if (virNetDevSetGateway(network->def->bridge, addr, prefix, &routedef->gateway) < 0)
        return -1;
    return 0;

}

3) If an ipv6 route for "::/0" really is illegal, then check for that in
the parser and disallow it there.