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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Wed, 18 Apr 2007 13:10:19 +0300
From:	Diego Beltrami <Diego.Beltrami@...t.fi>
To:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	kaber@...sh.net, kazunori@...azawa.org,
	herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org, miika@....fi
Subject: ESP interfamily tunnel bug?

Hi,

we have discovered a routing related problem in ESP tunnel and beet mode.
We don't know whether it is a bug in the XFRM, or just in the way the
virtual addresses and the corresponding routes are set-up. We set up a
dummy0 device for the virtual addresses:

root@...ong:~# ip addr show dummy0
5: dummy0: <BROADCAST,NOARP,UP,10000> mtu 1500 qdisc noqueue
     link/ether 92:09:fe:11:81:1b brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
     inet6 2001:72:e6d3:1cf3:e11d:5bb0:b99:e85e/28 scope global
        valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
     inet6 2001:74:32e0:df36:e862:3963:523e:dd7d/28 scope global
        valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
     inet6 2001:73:d3a8:8723:d572:7549:7f2c:e590/28 scope global
        valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
     inet6 2001:75:a2e6:aad6:e901:dd1c:ba95:e300/28 scope global
        valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
     inet6 fe80::9009:feff:fe11:811b/64 scope link
        valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever

And then we have routes for the virtual addresses:

root@...ong:~# ip -6 route
2001:72:e6d3:1cf3:e11d:5bb0:b99:e85e dev dummy0  metric 1024  expires
21334305sec mtu 1500 advmss 1440 metric 10 4294967295
2001:73:d3a8:8723:d572:7549:7f2c:e590 dev dummy0  metric 1024  expires
21334305sec mtu 1500 advmss 1440 metric 10 4294967295
2001:74:32e0:df36:e862:3963:523e:dd7d dev dummy0  metric 1024  expires
21334305sec mtu 1500 advmss 1440 metric 10 4294967295
2001:75:a2e6:aad6:e901:dd1c:ba95:e300 dev dummy0  metric 1024  expires
21334305sec mtu 1500 advmss 1440 metric 10 4294967295
2001:70::/28 dev dummy0  metric 256  expires 21334305sec mtu 1500 advmss
1440 metric 10 4294967295
fe80::/64 dev dummy0  metric 256  expires 21334305sec mtu 1500 advmss 1440
metric 10 4294967295
ff00::/8 dev eth0  metric 256  expires 21325454sec mtu 1500 advmss 1440
metric 10 4294967295
ff00::/8 dev dummy0  metric 256  expires 21334305sec mtu 1500 advmss 1440
metric 10 4294967295
unreachable default dev lo  proto none  metric -1  error -101 metric 10
255

...and set-up policies and associations. The virtual IPv6 addresses
are inner and IPv4 addresses are outer addresses:

root@...ong:~/projects/hipl--userspace--2.6# ip xfrm policy show
src 2001:76:7d5a:88d7:51af:cdd1:6bf5:3d15/128 dst
2001:74:32e0:df36:e862:3963:523e:dd7d/128
         dir in priority 0
         tmpl src c1a7:bb82:: dst c0a8:65::
                 proto esp reqid 0 mode beet
src 2001:74:32e0:df36:e862:3963:523e:dd7d/128 dst
2001:76:7d5a:88d7:51af:cdd1:6bf5:3d15/128
         dir out priority 0
         tmpl src c0a8:65:: dst c1a7:bb82::
                 proto esp reqid 0 mode beet

root@...ong:~/projects/hipl--userspace--2.6# ip xfrm state show
src 193.167.187.130 dst 192.168.0.101
         proto esp spi 0xf556c7c7 reqid 0 mode beet
         replay-window 0
         auth sha1 0xab327b944011c94a0c54a097b4752e23f377ff34
         enc aes 0x882a334830b1cd14b9e411ec37a4242f
         encap type espinudp-nonike sport 50500 dport 50500
               addr 193.167.187.130
         sel src 2001:76:7d5a:88d7:51af:cdd1:6bf5:3d15/0
             dst 2001:74:32e0:df36:e862:3963:523e:dd7d/0
             src 192.168.0.101 dst 193.167.187.130
         proto esp spi 0x1663f3a4 reqid 0 mode beet
         replay-window 0
         auth sha1 0x9f07dabce4abf2ebfe45e247ede2cf15f9156a13
         enc aes 0xfc50593b9af6d296b042a16ca00bad20
         encap type espinudp-nonike
             sport 50500 dport 50500 addr 192.168.0.101
         sel src 2001:74:32e0:df36:e862:3963:523e:dd7d/0
             dst 2001:76:7d5a:88d7:51af:cdd1:6bf5:3d15/0

And then we try to ping6 the virtual address:

root@...ong:~/projects/hipl--userspace--2.6# ping6 -I
2001:0074:32e0:df36:e862:3963:523e:dd7d
2001:76:7d5a:88d7:51af:cdd1:6bf5:3d15
PING
2001:76:7d5a:88d7:51af:cdd1:6bf5:3d15(2001:76:7d5a:88d7:51af:cdd1:6bf5:3d15)
from 2001:74:32e0:df36:e862:3963:523e:dd7d : 56 data bytes
ping: sendmsg: Network is unreachable
ping: sendmsg: Network is unreachable

Tcpdump shows no traffic at the host. We can repeat the problem both with
tunnel and beet modes in 2.6.21-rc6 (and also in 2.6.17.14).

I have tried also "ip rule stuff" but it seems that it does not rule with
IPv6 :) It does help either to reduce the number of virtual addresses to a
single one. It is weird that the ESP actually works some combinations of
virtual addresses (4 of 16) in both directions, or works unidirectionally
on some and does not work at all on the rest. I verified the
unidirectional property using a simple UDP based application: sender xmits
UDP packet, receiver gets it ok, but cannot respond. So, the problem is in
the transmission of packets.

I traced the ENETUNREACH in the kernel side to here:

net/ipv4/route.c:ip_route_output_slow:
         if (fib_lookup(&fl, &res)) {
         ....
                if (dev_out)
                         dev_put(dev_out);
                 err = -ENETUNREACH;

FIB lookup up is returning an error net/ipv4/fib_rules:

int fib_lookup(const struct flowi *flp, struct fib_result *res)
{
...
         hlist_for_each_entry_rcu(r, node, &fib_rules, hlist) {
...
                 case RTN_UNREACHABLE:
                         rcu_read_unlock();
                         return -ENETUNREACH;

I wonder if the problem is related to one that Yoshifugi has filed:

http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8349

The bug does not usually occur with machines that in the same
physical network, so I guess it is a routing problem. Any ideas or hints?

Miika & Diego





-
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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists