Date:   Tue, 23 Jun 2020 23:48:48 +0200
From:   Michael Tuexen <michael.tuexen@...chi.franken.de>
To:     Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>
Cc:     Corey Minyard <minyard@....org>,
        David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
        Xin Long <lucien.xin@...il.com>,
        Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@...il.com>,
        Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>,
        "linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org" <linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Strange problem with SCTP+IPv6

> On 23. Jun 2020, at 23:31, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 11:24:59PM +0200, Michael Tuexen wrote:
>>> On 23. Jun 2020, at 23:21, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 11:17:56AM -0500, Corey Minyard wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 01:17:28PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
>>>>> From: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
>>>>>> Sent: 22 June 2020 19:33
>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 08:01:24PM +0200, Michael Tuexen wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 22. Jun 2020, at 18:57, Corey Minyard <minyard@....org> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 08:01:23PM +0800, Xin Long wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 11:56 PM Corey Minyard <minyard@....org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> I've stumbled upon a strange problem with SCTP and IPv6.  If I create an
>>>>>>>>>> sctp listening socket on :: and set the IPV6_V6ONLY socket option on it,
>>>>>>>>>> then I make a connection to it using ::1, the connection will drop after
>>>>>>>>>> 2.5 seconds with an ECONNRESET error.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> It only happens on SCTP, it doesn't have the issue if you connect to a
>>>>>>>>>> full IPv6 address instead of ::1, and it doesn't happen if you don't
>>>>>>>>>> set IPV6_V6ONLY.  I have verified current end of tree kernel.org.
>>>>>>>>>> I tried on an ARM system and x86_64.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> I haven't dug into the kernel to see if I could find anything yet, but I
>>>>>>>>>> thought I would go ahead and report it.  I am attaching a reproducer.
>>>>>>>>>> Basically, compile the following code:
>>>>>>>>> The code only set IPV6_V6ONLY on server side, so the client side will
>>>>>>>>> still bind all the local ipv4 addresses (as you didn't call bind() to
>>>>>>>>> bind any specific addresses ). Then after the connection is created,
>>>>>>>>> the client will send HB on the v4 paths to the server. The server
>>>>>>>>> will abort the connection, as it can't support v4.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> So you can work around it by either:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> - set IPV6_V6ONLY on client side.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> - bind to the specific v6 addresses on the client side.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I don't see RFC said something about this.
>>>>>>>>> So it may not be a good idea to change the current behaviour
>>>>>>>>> to not establish the connection in this case, which may cause regression.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Ok, I understand this.  It's a little strange, but I see why it works
>>>>>>>> this way.
>>>>>>> I don't. I would expect it to work as I described in my email.
>>>>>>> Could someone explain me how and why it is behaving different from
>>>>>>> my expectation?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> It looks like a bug to me. Testing with this test app here, I can see
>>>>>> the INIT_ACK being sent with a bunch of ipv4 addresses in it and
>>>>>> that's unexpected for a v6only socket. As is, it's the server saying
>>>>>> "I'm available at these other addresses too, but not."
>>>>> 
>>>>> Does it even make sense to mix IPv4 and IPv6 addresses on the same
>>>>> connection?
>>>>> I don't remember ever seeing both types of address in a message,
>>>>> but may not have looked.
>>>> 
>>>> That's an interesting question.  Do the RFCs say anything?  I would
>>>> assume it was ok unless ipv6only was set.
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> I also wonder whether the connection should be dropped for an error
>>>>> response on a path that has never been validated.
>>>> 
>>>> That actually bothered me a bit more.  Shouldn't it stay up if any path
>>>> is up?  That's kind of the whole point of multihoming.
>>> 
>>> Michael explained it on the other email. What he described is what I
>>> observed in my tests.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> OTOH the whole 'multi-homing' part of SCTP sucks.
>>>> 
>>>> I don't think so.
>>>> 
>>>>> The IP addresses a server needs to bind to depend on where the
>>>>> incoming connection will come from.
>>>>> A local connection may be able to use a 192.168.x.x address
>>>>> but a remote connection must not - as it may be defined locally
>>>>> at the remote system.
>>>>> But both connections can come into the public (routable) address.
>>>>> We have to tell customers to explicitly configure the local IP
>>>>> addresses - which means the application has to know what they are.
>>>>> Fortunately these apps are pretty static - usually M3UA.
>>>> 
>>>> Umm, no,  If you have a private address, it better be behind a firewall,
>>>> and the firewall should handle rewriting the packet to fix the addresses.
>>>> 
>>>> It doesn't appear that Linux netfilter does this.  There is a TODO in
>>>> the code for this.  But that's how it *should* work.
>>> 
>>> Right, we don't support SCTP aware NAT [1].
>>> 
>>> 1.https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-stewart-behave-sctpnat-04
>> The current version is: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-natsupp-16
> 
> Thanks!
> 
>> 
>> Another possibility for NAT traversal is UDP encapsulation...
> 
> Also not supported.. :-]
But maybe someone wants to implement it. It is supported by FreeBSD, if you
need a peer for testing. Or the userland stack usrsctp supports it. Then you
do not need root privileges to run it.

Best regards
Michael
> 
> Best regards,
> Marcelo
> 
>> 
>> Best regards
>> Michael
>>> 
>>> Marcelo
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -corey
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 	David
>>>>> 
>>>>> -
>>>>> Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
>>>>> Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
>>>>> 
>> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists