Re: [PATCH 2/2] conf, fwd: Prefer same-scope address as inbound source address from host

[David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 8628 bytes --]

On Mon, Aug 17, 2026 at 10:18:31PM +0200, Stefano Brivio wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jul 2026 11:52:50 +1000
> David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Jul 23, 2026 at 11:42:36AM +0200, Stefano Brivio wrote:
> > > On Thu, 23 Jul 2026 13:36:58 +1000
> > > David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote:
> > >   
> > > > On Thu, Jul 23, 2026 at 01:26:39AM +0200, Stefano Brivio wrote:  
> > > > > We might have situations, such as the one described in
> > > > > https://bugs.passt.top/show_bug.cgi?id=217, where using a link-local
> > > > > address as source in a given namespace doesn't guarantee that we can
> > > > > reach the intended destination, because, for instance, the inbound
> > > > > traffic we forward is in turn forwarded to a different interface, such
> > > > > as a bridge.
> > > > > 
> > > > > In that case, the assumption from 9618d247006a ("ndp, dhcpv6, tcp,
> > > > > udp: Always use link-local as source if gateway isn't") isn't a safe
> > > > > one: the user might have specified a valid gateway address, matching
> > > > > the scope of the destination address, but we won't use it as address
> > > > > of last resort, and prefer a link-local address with a mismatch in
> > > > > scope instead.
> > > > > 
> > > > > This should only be an issue in IPv6 local mode, because, otherwise,
> > > > > we source address and default gateway address (presumably compatible)
> > > > > from the host.
> > > > > 
> > > > > So, in local mode, if the user specifies a given default gateway
> > > > > address for IPv6, note that as 'our_tap_addr', like we would do with
> > > > > with IPv4, and stick to Rule 2 of RFC 6724, Section 5, when selecting
> > > > > a source address, by preferring an address with the same scope, if
> > > > > available.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Reported-by: Paul Holzinger <pholzing@redhat.com>
> > > > > Link: https://bugs.passt.top/show_bug.cgi?id=217
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com>    
> > > > 
> > > > Reviewed-by: David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
> > > > 
> > > > [snip]  
> > > > > diff --git a/fwd.c b/fwd.c
> > > > > index 7152169..4ba0af3 100644
> > > > > --- a/fwd.c
> > > > > +++ b/fwd.c
> > > > > @@ -1090,7 +1090,11 @@ uint8_t fwd_nat_from_host(const struct ctx *c,
> > > > >  				return PIF_NONE;
> > > > >  			tgt->oaddr = inany_from_v4(c->ip4.our_tap_addr);
> > > > >  		} else {
> > > > > -			tgt->oaddr.a6 = c->ip6.our_tap_ll;
> > > > > +			if (inany_is_linklocal6(&tgt->eaddr) ||    
> > > > 
> > > > Just to make sure you're aware: this will only trigger if tgt->eaddr
> > > > has been set at this point, which is not always the case.  In fact it
> > > > will usually only be the case when the rule specifies a target
> > > > address.  In other cases we pick tgt->oaddr first then pick
> > > > tgt->eaddr's scope to try to match it.  
> > > 
> > > Right, yes, I had half a mind to try and change this slightly (see
> > > below) but then I realised that luckily it wasn't needed for this
> > > minimal fix, as Podman will specify an explicit destination address, so
> > > I preferred to avoid the topic altogether for the moment (including
> > > avoiding comments that risk ignoring some corner cases) because:
> > >   
> > > > I think the fact that the order in which we pick eaddr and oaddr
> > > > varies is pretty confusing, but I haven't so far seen a way to avoid
> > > > it without breaking something worse.  
> > > 
> > > ...I think that, at least in the !nat_inbound() case, we should avoid
> > > a strict ordering in the selection of source and destination address
> > > (we should look into both at the same time) because in general we know
> > > upfront if we can match the scope between source and destination,  
> > 
> > I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that.
> 
> I mean that we shouldn't try to do something like:
> 
> 1. check table with mapping of source addresses, apply transformations
> 
> 2. check table with mapping of destination addresses, apply
>    transformations
> 
> but rather:
> 
> 1. check table with mapping of source addresses and table with mapping
>    of destination addresses, and apply relevant transformations
>    (establishing some rules on how to check both "at the same time" is
>    more complicated than the alternative, but also more useful)
> 
> > > and we
> > > should always try to do that (same here, RFC 6724 Section 5 Rule 2).  
> > 
> > AFAICT the RFC rules are assuming you already know the destination address.
> 
> Yes, true, I'm not saying that we should apply the RFC as it is (it
> doesn't cover what we're doing, just something that resembles it).
> 
> I'm just saying that if we consider both source and destination address
> mappings at the same time, we can find a combination that satisfies
> that rule.

Ok, makes sense.  Doing that certainly complicates the design, but
yeah the flexibility is probably necessary.

> > > And, if there are multiple ways to match the scopes, we should prefer
> > > the most specific / smaller common scope (same rule as above, Section
> > > 3.1 helps in the interpretation).  
> > 
> > Ok, makes sense, although again I'm not sure it really follows from
> > the RFC which seems to assume a known destination.
> 
> Same here: we shouldn't apply those sequentially (even though that
> makes sense in the general scenario foreseen by the RFC, but we don't
> need to apply the RFC -- it's just that those rules are useful to draw
> some inspiration).

Ok.

> > > But this would be much simpler to implement once we have Jon's changes
> > > generalising address storage, because at that point we could have a
> > > lookup function for the smallest scope of usable address, or even a
> > > joint lookup function altogether. In detail, I think we should do this
> > > (again, under the !nat_inbound() condition):  
> > 
> > Right.
> > 
> > > 
> > > 1. if there's a possible link-local source address and a possible
> > >    destination source address, pick both  
> > 
> > Did you mean specifically a link-local possible destination address
> > here?
> 
> Ah, yes, sorry. Both link-local.
> 
> > > 2. if there's a possible unicast source address and a possible unicast
> > >    destination address, pick both
> > > 
> > > 3. if there's a possible link-local source address, pick it, and then
> > >    pick any (mismatching) destination address
> > > 
> > > 4. otherwise, pick any available source address, and any available
> > >    destination address
> > > 
> > > ...and once we have that series, we can probably avoid implementing
> > > these as distinct steps. I would defer all this to that point, and
> > > meanwhile just fix whatever critical case might come up (like the
> > > current one with Podman).  
> > 
> > Ok.
> > 
> > > > I still think this change is correct: not previously having
> > > > ip6.our_tap_addr was only possible because we did this odd dance to
> > > > pick eaddr based on oaddr's scope rather than the other way around.
> > > >   
> > > > > +			    IN6_IS_ADDR_UNSPECIFIED(&c->ip6.our_tap_addr))
> > > > > +				tgt->oaddr.a6 = c->ip6.our_tap_ll;
> > > > > +			else
> > > > > +				tgt->oaddr.a6 = c->ip6.our_tap_addr;
> > > > >  		}
> > > > >  	}
> > > > >  	tgt->oport = ini->eport;
> > > > > diff --git a/passt.h b/passt.h
> > > > > index a61baca..51ccd4f 100644
> > > > > --- a/passt.h
> > > > > +++ b/passt.h
> > > > > @@ -121,6 +121,7 @@ struct ip4_ctx {
> > > > >   * @dns:		DNS addresses for DHCPv6 and NDP
> > > > >   * @dns_match:		Forward DNS query if sent to this address
> > > > >   * @our_tap_ll:		Link-local IPv6 address for passt's use on tap
> > > > > + * @our_tap_addr:	Non-LL IPv6 address for passt's use on tap (if any)
> > > > >   * @dns_host:		Use this DNS on the host for forwarding
> > > > >   * @addr_out:		Optional source address for outbound traffic
> > > > >   * @ifname_out:		Optional interface name to bind outbound sockets to
> > > > > @@ -140,6 +141,7 @@ struct ip6_ctx {
> > > > >  	struct in6_addr dns[MAXNS];
> > > > >  	struct in6_addr dns_match;
> > > > >  	struct in6_addr our_tap_ll;
> > > > > +	struct in6_addr our_tap_addr;
> > > > >  
> > > > >  	/* PIF_HOST addresses */
> > > > >  	struct in6_addr dns_host;
> > > > > -- 
> > > > > 2.43.0  
> 
> -- 
> Stefano
> 

-- 
David Gibson (he or they)	| 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

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]