netdev - Re: [PATCH] don't allow netfilter --setmss to increase mss

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: <47565F64.2000907@trash.net>
Date:	Wed, 05 Dec 2007 09:20:52 +0100
From:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
To:	Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org>
CC:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Netfilter Development Mailinglist 
	<netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] don't allow netfilter --setmss to increase mss

Please send netfilter-related patches to netfilter-devel.

Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
> When terminating DSL connections for an assortment of random customers, I've 
> found it necessary to use iptables to clamp the MSS used for connections to 
> work around the various ICMP blackholes in the greater net.  Unfortunately, 
> the current behaviour in Linux is imperfect and actually make things worse, 
> so I'm proposing the following: increasing the MSS in a packet can never be 
> a good thing, so make --set-mss only lower the MSS in a packet.
> 
> Yes, I am aware of --clamp-mss-to-pmtu, but it doesn't work for outgoing 
> connections from clients (ie web traffic), as it only looks at the PMTU on 
> the destination route, not the source of the packet (the DSL interfaces in 
> question have a 1442 byte MTU while the destination ethernet interface is 
> 1500 -- there are problematic hosts which use a 1300 byte MTU).  Reworking 
> that is probably a good idea at some point, but it's more work than this is.

Yes, this has always annoyed me too as it doesn't really work for me
in a similar setup where traffic first goes through an IPsec tunnel,
then through a MSS mangling gateway and then over a DSL line. I'll
add a patch on top of yours to take the MSS in reverse direction
into account.

> Thoughts?  Would it be better to add a new flag?

No, this is obviously a good idea, I actually thought we'd already
prevent increasing it in all cases. I've applied your patch, thanks.
--
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