netdev - Re: bridge is not forwaring ICMP6 neighbor solicitation to KVM guest

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

Date:	Tue, 4 Mar 2014 03:02:36 -0500 (EST)
From:	Jan Stancek <jstancek@...hat.com>
To:	Linus Lüssing <linus.luessing@....de>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, Florian Westphal <fwestpha@...hat.com>,
	bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: bridge is not forwaring ICMP6 neighbor solicitation to KVM
 guest



----- Original Message -----
> From: "Linus Lüssing" <linus.luessing@....de>
> To: "Jan Stancek" <jstancek@...hat.com>
> Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, "Florian Westphal" <fwestpha@...hat.com>, bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org
> Sent: Tuesday, 4 March, 2014 1:00:41 AM
> Subject: Re: bridge is not forwaring ICMP6 neighbor solicitation to KVM guest
> 
> Hi Jan,
> 
> On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 05:45:49PM -0500, Jan Stancek wrote:
> > There is also bridge on host B. I assume that doesn't matter
> > but I could set up host B without bridge if needed.
> 
> It can matter, but in this case it doesn't :).
> 
> > > What I'm curious about is, whether the guest receives
> > > the MLD query and responds with an MLD report. I suspect that
> > > either the bridge doesn't get an MLD report and therefore is
> > > shutting down the according port or there's a bug in parsing the
> > > MLD report in the bridge code.
> > 
> > I'm no expert in this area, but shouldn't neigh. solicit packets
> > be forwarded to all ports regardless of any/no MLD reports?
> 
> That's the beauty of IPv6 Neighbor Discovery using these neat
> solicited-node multicast addresses :). With IPv4 and ARP
> requests there's no other way than flooding. But for IPv6 we know
> in advance behind which bridge port someone interested in the
> neighbor solicitation message might be (assuming MLD is working,
> properly), allowing us to save bandwidth.
> 
> In this case, MLD is not working properly, the main issue is the
> following:
> 
> Host B sends broken MLD queries, the source address should be an
> IPv6 link-local one, not "100:0:600:0:78fb:100::". MLDv2 mandates
> this (see RFC3810, section 5.1.14.: "Source Addresses for
> Queries").
> 
> Though I couldn't find that requirement for MLDv1, Linux ignores
> MLDv1 queries with a non-link-local source address, too (see
> net/ipv6/mcast.c, igmp6_event_query() ). So Linux never sends an
> MLD report in reply to these broken queries.
> 
> 
> The second "minor" but in this case fatal issue is, that the
> bridge code doesn't have this link-local-src check, therefore
> kicking the snooping into gear even though it shouldn't because we
> don't have a _working_ querier.
> 
> I'm going to make a patch for the bridge code adding this sanity
> check.
> 
> 
> For the broken query, ok, it's your manually crafted query. But
> did you see a query with such a bogus source address "in the
> wild", too? (I'm curious how urgent this sanity check is)

It's real packet I managed to capture during one such occurrence.
I'm sending it with small C program over raw socket, but it's byte
by byte exact copy of what I captured with tcpdump previously.

I'm not sure how that packet came to existence. Based on IPv6 address
it came from host B, but all host B was doing at the time
was running RHEL6 with couple qemu-kvm instances. KVM guests were
set up to use bridge, so I'm assuming if any of them crafted
this packet, source IPv6 address would be different.

Regards,
Jan

> 
> Cheers, Linus
> 
--
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