chore: sync konduit-platform v0.1.0-beta.8

konduit-platform/src/routes/linux.rs

@@ -206,20 +206,7 @@ impl RouteManager {
 
             self.added_routes.push((Ipv4Addr::new(0, 0, 0, 0), 0));
 
-            // Add a high-priority ip rule so konduit's main-table routes override any
-            // policy-routing stack (e.g., xray, sing-box) that intercepts traffic via a
-            // separate routing table at priority ~9000.
-            match std::process::Command::new("ip")
-                .args(["rule", "add", "priority", &VPN_RULE_PRIORITY.to_string(), "lookup", "main"])
-                .status()
-            {
-                Ok(s) if s.success() => {
-                    self.added_policy_rule = true;
-                    info!("Added ip rule priority {} → main table", VPN_RULE_PRIORITY);
-                }
-                Ok(_) => warn!("ip rule add returned non-zero (rule may already exist)"),
-                Err(e) => warn!("Failed to run ip rule add: {}", e),
-            }
+            self.install_policy_rule().await;
         } else {
             info!(
                 "Split-tunnel mode: adding {} routes via VPN...",
@@ -281,6 +268,52 @@ impl RouteManager {
         Ok(())
     }
 
+    /// Add a high-priority ip rule so konduit's main-table routes override any
+    /// policy-routing stack (e.g., xray, sing-box) that intercepts traffic via a
+    /// separate routing table at priority ~9000.
+    ///
+    /// Uses the same netlink handle as every other route change here, rather
+    /// than shelling out to `ip rule add` -- a child process spawned via
+    /// std::process::Command does NOT inherit capabilities granted to this
+    /// process via `setcap`/file capabilities (they'd need to be raised into
+    /// the ambient set first, which nothing here does), so the subprocess
+    /// silently failed with EPERM ("RTNETLINK answers: Operation not
+    /// permitted") every time, regardless of environment. That meant this
+    /// rule never actually got installed, so a competing policy-routing
+    /// stack (e.g. Xray) could keep overriding the VPN's own routes.
+    async fn install_policy_rule(&mut self) {
+        match self
+            .handle
+            .rule()
+            .add()
+            .v4()
+            .priority(VPN_RULE_PRIORITY)
+            // RuleAddRequest::new() defaults the rule's action to Unspec, not
+            // ToTable. A "from all" rule (matches every packet) with an
+            // Unspec action is not a valid "jump to main table" rule and the
+            // kernel does not fall through past it — it broke route lookups
+            // for ALL traffic, not just VPN traffic, until reboot.
+            .action(netlink_packet_route::rule::RuleAction::ToTable)
+            .execute()
+            .await
+        {
+            Ok(()) => {
+                self.added_policy_rule = true;
+                info!("Added ip rule priority {} → main table", VPN_RULE_PRIORITY);
+            }
+            Err(e) => {
+                let err_msg = format!("{:?}", e);
+                if err_msg.contains("File exists") || err_msg.contains("EEXIST") || err_msg.contains("code: Some(-17)")
+                {
+                    self.added_policy_rule = true;
+                    warn!("ip rule priority {} already exists, continuing...", VPN_RULE_PRIORITY);
+                } else {
+                    warn!("Failed to add ip rule priority {}: {:?}", VPN_RULE_PRIORITY, e);
+                }
+            }
+        }
+    }
+
     /// Setup DNS configuration
     pub async fn setup_dns(&mut self, dns_servers: &[IpAddr], assigned_ip: IpAddr) -> Result<()> {
         if dns_servers.is_empty() {
@@ -425,14 +458,28 @@ impl RouteManager {
         );
 
         // Remove the policy rule first so traffic stops using the VPN immediately.
+        // Same netlink-handle approach as the add side above -- `handle.rule().del()`
+        // needs the exact existing RuleMessage, so look it up by priority first.
         if self.added_policy_rule {
-            match std::process::Command::new("ip")
-                .args(["rule", "del", "priority", &VPN_RULE_PRIORITY.to_string(), "lookup", "main"])
-                .status()
-            {
-                Ok(s) if s.success() => info!("Removed ip rule priority {}", VPN_RULE_PRIORITY),
-                Ok(_) => warn!("ip rule del returned non-zero"),
-                Err(e) => warn!("Failed to run ip rule del: {}", e),
+            let mut rules = self.handle.rule().get(IpVersion::V4).execute();
+            let mut to_delete = None;
+            while let Some(rule) = rules.try_next().await? {
+                let matches_priority = rule
+                    .attributes
+                    .iter()
+                    .any(|attr| matches!(attr, netlink_packet_route::rule::RuleAttribute::Priority(p) if *p == VPN_RULE_PRIORITY));
+                if matches_priority {
+                    to_delete = Some(rule);
+                    break;
+                }
+            }
+
+            match to_delete {
+                Some(rule) => match self.handle.rule().del(rule).execute().await {
+                    Ok(()) => info!("Removed ip rule priority {}", VPN_RULE_PRIORITY),
+                    Err(e) => warn!("Failed to delete ip rule priority {}: {:?}", VPN_RULE_PRIORITY, e),
+                },
+                None => warn!("ip rule priority {} not found, nothing to remove", VPN_RULE_PRIORITY),
             }
             self.added_policy_rule = false;
         }
@@ -506,3 +553,69 @@ impl Drop for RouteManager {
         }
     }
 }
+
+#[cfg(test)]
+mod tests {
+    use super::*;
+    use netlink_packet_route::rule::RuleAction;
+
+    const REEXEC_ENV_VAR: &str = "KORIDOR_ROUTE_TEST_IN_NETNS";
+
+    // `unshare(CLONE_NEWUSER)` fails with EINVAL if the calling process is
+    // multithreaded (which `cargo test`'s harness always is). So instead of
+    // calling the syscall in-process, re-exec this same test binary under
+    // the external `unshare --user --net --map-root-user` command, which
+    // starts a fresh, single-threaded process already inside an isolated
+    // user+net namespace -- no real root needed, and the host's actual
+    // routing rules are never touched.
+    fn run_in_isolated_netns(test_name: &str) {
+        let exe = std::env::current_exe().expect("current_exe");
+        let status = std::process::Command::new("unshare")
+            .args(["--user", "--net", "--map-root-user", "--"])
+            .arg(&exe)
+            .args(["--exact", test_name, "--nocapture", "--test-threads=1"])
+            .env(REEXEC_ENV_VAR, "1")
+            .status()
+            .expect("failed to spawn unshare (is util-linux's `unshare` installed?)");
+        assert!(status.success(), "test failed inside isolated netns (see output above)");
+    }
+
+    // Regression test for the bug where connecting broke ALL host networking
+    // (not just VPN traffic) until a reboot: the policy rule installed to
+    // make konduit's routes win over other policy-routing stacks was built
+    // via `RuleAddRequest::new()`, which defaults `header.action` to
+    // `RuleAction::Unspec` — a "from all" rule (matches every packet) with
+    // no action is not a valid "jump to main table" rule, and the kernel
+    // does not fall through to the next rule for it, breaking route lookups
+    // system-wide. The fix must set the action explicitly to `ToTable`.
+    #[tokio::test(flavor = "current_thread")]
+    async fn policy_rule_uses_to_table_action() {
+        if std::env::var(REEXEC_ENV_VAR).is_err() {
+            run_in_isolated_netns("routes::linux::tests::policy_rule_uses_to_table_action");
+            return;
+        }
+
+        let mut mgr = RouteManager::new("lo".to_string())
+            .await
+            .expect("failed to create RouteManager in isolated netns");
+
+        mgr.install_policy_rule().await;
+
+        let mut rules = mgr.handle.rule().get(IpVersion::V4).execute();
+        let mut found = false;
+        while let Some(rule) = rules.try_next().await.unwrap() {
+            let is_ours = rule.attributes.iter().any(|attr| {
+                matches!(attr, netlink_packet_route::rule::RuleAttribute::Priority(p) if *p == VPN_RULE_PRIORITY)
+            });
+            if is_ours {
+                assert_eq!(
+                    rule.header.action,
+                    RuleAction::ToTable,
+                    "policy rule must use the ToTable action, or the kernel treats it as a black hole for every packet it matches (i.e. everything)"
+                );
+                found = true;
+            }
+        }
+        assert!(found, "installed policy rule not found via rule().get()");
+    }
+}