On Sat, Jan 06, 2024 at 04:59:11PM +0100, Stefano Brivio wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Dec 2023 17:53:19 +1100
> David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote:
> 
> > Linux ICMP "ping" sockets are very specific in what they do.  They let
> > userspace send ping requests (ICMP_ECHO or ICMP6_ECHO_REQUEST), and receive
> > matching replies (ICMP_ECHOREPLY or ICMP6_ECHO_REPLY).  They don't let you
> > intercept or handle incoming ping requests.
> 
> Right... I don't know exactly what I was trying to do with this, back
> then. By the way this is the main reason why it took me a while to
> review this series... did I really write all those checks without a
> purpose? :) Well, it looks like it.
> 
> Anyway, if you look at ping_err() in net/ipv4/ping.c, you'll see that
> among the messages which can be sent back as error (they're received on
> the socket causing the error -- same as ICMP messages you get on a UDP
> socket for port unreachable), ICMP_ECHO is allowed (see
> ping_supported()).
> 
> I think I just used that ping_supported() function to find out which
> messages we could get on the socket. But we're not going to get those
> anyway.

Right.

> By the way, ICMP{,V6}_EXT_ECHO{,_REQUEST} support (RFC 8335, PROBE
> messages) was added a while ago (kernel commit 08baf54f01f5 "net: add
> support for sending RFC 8335 PROBE messages")... we should add that at
> some point, it's kind of trivial.

Indeed.  Want to make a BZ for it so we don't forget?

> > In the case of passt/pasta that means we can process echo requests from tap
> > and forward them to a ping socket, then take the replies from the ping
> > socket and forward them to tap.  We can't do the reverse: take echo
> > requests from the host and somehow forward them to the guest. There's
> > really no way for something outside to initiate a ping to a passt/pasta
> > connected guest and if there was we'd need an entirely different mechanism
> > to handle it.
> > 
> > However, we have some logic to deal with packets going in that reverse
> > direction.  Remove it, since it can't ever be used that way.  While we're
> > there use defines for the ICMPv6 types, instead of open coded type values.
> 
> I guess this last sentence only applied to a previous version of your
> patch. It doesn't matter so much, but it would be nice to drop if you
> re-spin.

Uh... no.. that change is right:

[snip]
> > @@ -222,7 +219,7 @@ int icmp_tap_handler(const struct ctx *c, uint8_t pif, int af,
> >  		if (!ih)
> >  			return 1;
> >  
> > -		if (ih->icmp6_type != 128 && ih->icmp6_type != 129)
> > +		if (ih->icmp6_type != ICMPV6_ECHO_REQUEST)

here.

-- 
David Gibson			| I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au	| minimalist, thank you.  NOT _the_ _other_
				| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson