netdev - Re: [net-next-2.6] XFRM: remove unused member in xfrm_encap

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4CF40E8D.1010506@iki.fi>
Date:	Mon, 29 Nov 2010 22:35:25 +0200
From:	Timo Teräs <timo.teras@....fi>
To:	David Shwatrz <dshwatrz@...il.com>
CC:	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [net-next-2.6] XFRM: remove unused member in xfrm_encap_tmpl.

On 11/29/2010 10:09 PM, David Shwatrz wrote:
> Timo,
> Thanks for your answer.
> 
>> Alternatively the other RFCs say that the checksum can be just
>> recalculated. That's what the linux stack does: it throws the old
>> checksum away (ignored on local receive and recalculated on send
>> forward paths).
> 
> Sorry, something here seems to me still wrong; maybe I miss something.
> We are talking about transport mode. Let's take TCP for example.
> the packet is received by another peer. It is on port 4500 because of
> NAT-T. Since it is ESP encrypted , it is it is decrypted. It reaches
> the TCP layer. In TCP (as opposed to UDP), the checksum is mandatory.
> But the checksum in that TCP header of the received
> packet will not be correct, since the IP header of that packet is
> **NOT** the original address ; the IP address was changed by the NAT.
> The NAT  cannot change the TCP checksum since it is encrypted. So
> wouldn't we have a checksum error in the case of TCP ?  It seems to me
> that the purpose of NAT-OA was to pass the
> original address, so that there will be no error in such a case.
> But again, maybe I miss something, since I did not heard that
> transport mode has any problems with NAT-T. Or maybe this was not
> tested?

Yes, it's the primary use case for NAT-OA, to allow "fast" update of the
checksum.

The Linux way works too. It's tested.

Like I said, the IPsec stack says to TCP/UDP stack part "I've already
check the checksum, do not look at it". If the packet is forwarded the
kernel (or NIC hardware) *recalculates* the proper checksum; as if it
was generating the packet in first place.

Using NAT-OA to update checksum is purely an optimisation; mostly useful
only when forwarding form one IPsec tunnel to another one which does not
happen often in transport mode (perhaps only in some very special NAT
setups).
--
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