linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next 4/4] bonding: balance ICMP echoes in layer3+4 mode

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]

Message-ID: <20191023180057.GC28355@netronome.com>
Date:   Wed, 23 Oct 2019 20:00:58 +0200
From:   Simon Horman <simon.horman@...ronome.com>
To:     Matteo Croce <mcroce@...hat.com>
Cc:     netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jay Vosburgh <j.vosburgh@...il.com>,
        Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...il.com>,
        Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Paul Blakey <paulb@...lanox.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 4/4] bonding: balance ICMP echoes in layer3+4
 mode

On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 06:58:16PM +0200, Matteo Croce wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 12:01 PM Simon Horman
> <simon.horman@...ronome.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 10:09:48PM +0200, Matteo Croce wrote:
> > > The bonding uses the L4 ports to balance flows between slaves.
> > > As the ICMP protocol has no ports, those packets are sent all to the
> > > same device:
> > >
> > >     # tcpdump -qltnni veth0 ip |sed 's/^/0: /' &
> > >     # tcpdump -qltnni veth1 ip |sed 's/^/1: /' &
> > >     # ping -qc1 192.168.0.2
> > >     1: IP 192.168.0.1 > 192.168.0.2: ICMP echo request, id 315, seq 1, length 64
> > >     1: IP 192.168.0.2 > 192.168.0.1: ICMP echo reply, id 315, seq 1, length 64
> > >     # ping -qc1 192.168.0.2
> > >     1: IP 192.168.0.1 > 192.168.0.2: ICMP echo request, id 316, seq 1, length 64
> > >     1: IP 192.168.0.2 > 192.168.0.1: ICMP echo reply, id 316, seq 1, length 64
> > >     # ping -qc1 192.168.0.2
> > >     1: IP 192.168.0.1 > 192.168.0.2: ICMP echo request, id 317, seq 1, length 64
> > >     1: IP 192.168.0.2 > 192.168.0.1: ICMP echo reply, id 317, seq 1, length 64
> > >
> > > But some ICMP packets have an Identifier field which is
> > > used to match packets within sessions, let's use this value in the hash
> > > function to balance these packets between bond slaves:
> > >
> > >     # ping -qc1 192.168.0.2
> > >     0: IP 192.168.0.1 > 192.168.0.2: ICMP echo request, id 303, seq 1, length 64
> > >     0: IP 192.168.0.2 > 192.168.0.1: ICMP echo reply, id 303, seq 1, length 64
> > >     # ping -qc1 192.168.0.2
> > >     1: IP 192.168.0.1 > 192.168.0.2: ICMP echo request, id 304, seq 1, length 64
> > >     1: IP 192.168.0.2 > 192.168.0.1: ICMP echo reply, id 304, seq 1, length 64
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Matteo Croce <mcroce@...hat.com>
> >
> > I see where this patch is going but it is unclear to me what problem it is
> > solving. I would expect ICMP traffic to be low volume and thus able to be
> > handled by a single lower-device of a bond.
> >
> > ...
> 
> Hi,
> 
> The problem is not balancing the volume, even if it could increase due
> to IoT devices pinging some well known DNS servers to check for
> connection.
> If a bonding slave is down, people using pings to check for
> connectivity could fail to detect a broken link if all the packets are
> sent to the alive link.
> Anyway, although I didn't measure it, the computational overhead of
> this changeset should be minimal, and only affect ICMP packets when
> the ICMP dissector is used.

So the idea is that by using different id values ping could be used
to probe all lower-devices of a bond? If so then I understand why
you want this and have no particular objection.