Validate transit IPs on network interface update#7559
Merged
FelixMcFelix merged 5 commits intomainfrom Feb 26, 2025
Merged
Conversation
This PR adds in some checks when setting transit IPs on a NIC to ensure that we have: * Only unicast addresses. * No loopback addresses. * No duplicates. As discussed in the ticket, violation of any of these isn't going to leave OPTE or CRDB in a broken state -- just a confusing one for end users. Closes #7530.
taspelund
reviewed
Feb 20, 2025
Contributor
|
Just one question about potentially making this logic more reusable, but it's not a blocker IMO. LGTM! |
Contributor
Author
Thanks -- since this isn't time critical, we'll see what we can upstream into oxnet first then. Overlap/contains would probably be uncontroversial, I think this definition of valid unicast isn't overly restrictive either but it might just be application-dependent. |
FelixMcFelix
added a commit
to oxidecomputer/oxnet
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 24, 2025
This PR brings in a few methods which would have been useful in writing oxidecomputer/omicron#7559 : * `is_subnet_of`/`is_supernet_of`/`overlaps`, for verifying disjoint ranges. Previously this was only on IPv6. * `is_network_address`, for checking that none of the host bits are set (and ensuring we have a canonical form). I'm open for bikeshedding on the name here, given /31s and /32s return a `None` from `.network()`. * Forwarding `is_multicast`, `is_loopback` from std/core.
FelixMcFelix
added a commit
to oxidecomputer/oxnet
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 24, 2025
…#45) This PR brings in a few methods which would have been useful in writing oxidecomputer/omicron#7559 : * `is_subnet_of`/`is_supernet_of`/`overlaps`, for verifying disjoint ranges. Previously this was only on IPv6. * `is_network_address`, for checking that none of the host bits are set (and ensuring we have a canonical form). I'm open for bikeshedding on the name here, given /31s and /32s return a `None` from `.network()`. * Forwarding `is_multicast`, `is_loopback` from std/core.
taspelund
approved these changes
Feb 26, 2025
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR adds in some checks when setting transit IPs on a NIC to ensure that we have:
As discussed in the ticket, violation of any of these isn't going to leave OPTE or CRDB in a broken state -- just a confusing one for end users. This should make things unambiguous in terms of what how the transit IPs will be handled.
Closes #7530.