[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220224102309.GN1223722@gauss3.secunet.de>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2022 11:23:09 +0100
From: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
To: Lina Wang <lina.wang@...iatek.com>
CC: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
"David Ahern" <dsahern@...nel.org>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
"Matthias Brugger" <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] xfrm: fix tunnel model fragmentation behavior
On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 02:09:31PM +0800, Lina Wang wrote:
> In tunnel mode, if outer interface(ipv4) is less, it is easily to let
> inner IPV6 mtu be less than 1280. If so, a Packet Too Big ICMPV6 message
> is received. When send again, packets are fragmentized with 1280, they
> are still rejected with ICMPV6(Packet Too Big) by xfrmi_xmit2().
>
> According to RFC4213 Section3.2.2:
> if (IPv4 path MTU - 20) is less than 1280
> if packet is larger than 1280 bytes
> Send ICMPv6 "packet too big" with MTU = 1280.
> Drop packet.
> else
> Encapsulate but do not set the Don't Fragment
> flag in the IPv4 header. The resulting IPv4
> packet might be fragmented by the IPv4 layer
> on the encapsulator or by some router along
> the IPv4 path.
> endif
> else
> if packet is larger than (IPv4 path MTU - 20)
> Send ICMPv6 "packet too big" with
> MTU = (IPv4 path MTU - 20).
> Drop packet.
> else
> Encapsulate and set the Don't Fragment flag
> in the IPv4 header.
> endif
> endif
> Packets should be fragmentized with ipv4 outer interface, so change it.
>
> After it is fragemtized with ipv4, there will be double fragmenation.
> No.48 & No.51 are ipv6 fragment packets, No.48 is double fragmentized,
> then tunneled with IPv4(No.49& No.50), which obey spec. And received peer
> cannot decrypt it rightly.
>
> 48 2002::10 2002::11 1296(length) IPv6 fragment (off=0 more=y ident=0xa20da5bc nxt=50)
> 49 0x0000 (0) 2002::10 2002::11 1304 IPv6 fragment (off=0 more=y ident=0x7448042c nxt=44)
> 50 0x0000 (0) 2002::10 2002::11 200 ESP (SPI=0x00035000)
> 51 2002::10 2002::11 180 Echo (ping) request
> 52 0x56dc 2002::10 2002::11 248 IPv6 fragment (off=1232 more=n ident=0xa20da5bc nxt=50)
>
> esp_noneed_fragment has fixed above issues. Finally, it acted like below:
> 1 0x6206 192.168.1.138 192.168.1.1 1316 Fragmented IP protocol (proto=Encap Security Payload 50, off=0, ID=6206) [Reassembled in #2]
> 2 0x6206 2002::10 2002::11 88 IPv6 fragment (off=0 more=y ident=0x1f440778 nxt=50)
> 3 0x0000 2002::10 2002::11 248 ICMPv6 Echo (ping) request
>
> Fixes: f203b76d7809 ("xfrm: Add virtual xfrm interfaces")
> Signed-off-by: Lina Wang <lina.wang@...iatek.com>
Your patch does not apply, it is not in plain text format.
> ---
> net/ipv6/xfrm6_output.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++
> net/xfrm/xfrm_interface.c | 5 ++++-
> 2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/ipv6/xfrm6_output.c b/net/ipv6/xfrm6_output.c
> index d0d280077721..1ee643f8f5d5 100644
> --- a/net/ipv6/xfrm6_output.c
> +++ b/net/ipv6/xfrm6_output.c
> @@ -45,6 +45,19 @@ static int __xfrm6_output_finish(struct net *net, struct sock *sk, struct sk_buf
> return xfrm_output(sk, skb);
> }
>
> +static int esp_noneed_fragment(struct sk_buff *skb)
> +{
> + struct frag_hdr *fh;
> + u8 prevhdr = ipv6_hdr(skb)->nexthdr;
> +
> + if (prevhdr != NEXTHDR_FRAGMENT)
> + return 0;
> + fh = (struct frag_hdr *)(skb->data + sizeof(struct ipv6hdr));
> + if (fh->nexthdr == NEXTHDR_ESP || fh->nexthdr == NEXTHDR_AUTH)
> + return 1;
> + return 0;
> +}
While at it, this is not an ESP speciffic function. Please rename to
xfrm_noneed_fragment.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists