netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH ipsec] xfrm: use the right dev to fill xdst

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 10 Apr 2013 14:39:39 +0300
From:	Daniel Baluta <dbaluta@...acom.com>
To:	Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
CC:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>,
	<herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH ipsec] xfrm: use the right dev to fill xdst

On 04/10/2013 02:29 PM, Steffen Klassert wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 09:18:33PM +0300, Daniel Baluta wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 8:33 PM, David Miller<davem@...emloft.net>  wrote:
>>> From: Daniel Baluta<daniel.baluta@...il.com>
>>> Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 20:31:30 +0300
>>>
>>>> As I mentioned earlier in this thread we are using some custom
>>>> kernel modules that create the interfaces.
>>>>
>>>> It's likely that these interfaces, for memory saving purposes, to
>>>> skip attaching ipv6 device information.
>>> So this is not an upstream bug.
>> Correct.
>>
>> With conditions mentioned by Steffen, in upstream, each net_device
>> has an in6_device assigned so we won't hit the problem.
>>
> We have an in6_device assigned in almost all of the cases, but I doubt
> it is always the right one.
>
> Let's say we want to tunnel ipv6 over ipv4. We do an ipv6 route lookup
> that returns a route with output device, say eth0. With that route,
> we do an IPsec route lookup and we get an ipv4 tunnel route with output
> device eth1.
>
> When we create the xfrm_dst in xfrm_bundle_create(), we copy the
> informations from the original ipv6 route, because we pass the new
> allocated IPsec route back to the ipv6 layer. But the device is taken
> from the ipv4 tunnel route (eth1 instead of eth0), so we pass a
> dst_entry with a ipv4 device assigned to the ipv6 layer.
>
> For that reason, xfrm6_fill_dst() complains about a NULL in6_device,
> when the mtu of the ipv4 device (passed to xfrm6_fill_dst()) is
> below IPV6_MIN_MTU.
>
> I think there is to fix something, but this needs some more research
> before we can do anything about that.
>
I will try  to further look into this. If you have any scripts
that can ease IPSec tunnels setup please do share.

thanks,
daniel.



--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html