netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] ipv6: RTAX_FEATURE_ALLFRAG causes inefficient TCP segment sizing

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

Message-ID: <CANP3RGf5oTd9mQsXqKj3uXgweMwjs9N3VSeXBHjDXQ7vG0NaSg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 25 Apr 2012 03:30:27 -0700
From:	Maciej Żenczykowski <maze@...gle.com>
To:	Tore Anderson <tore@....no>
Cc:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] ipv6: RTAX_FEATURE_ALLFRAG causes inefficient
 TCP segment sizing

> The sensible default would be either 1280 (and keep allfrag feature), or
> the minimum IPv4 PMTU currently enforced by the kernel + 20 bytes (to
> compensate for the larger IPv6 header size). I don't know what the current
> minimum PMTU is.

I'd actually go with min IPv4 PMTU - 20, not + 20, see below for why.

Hmm, it may be best to honour PMTUs below 1280 to some small but not
too small value (512?), and below that give up, say mtu remains 1280
but still add the frag header.

> Also, I'm not really sure if the IPv4 minimum PMTU is defined as 576 or
> 68 bytes. There are some conflicting information out there, and nothing
> really
> authoritative either way (that I've found at least).

Yeah, I've seen conflicting information.
I wonder if there's some tiny embedded devices out there with
miniscule mtus, because of tiny amounts of ram.

> Yup, only difference is that an IPv6 tunnel is guaranteed to have a MTU of
> 1280, so no need for allfrag or dropping PMTU below 1280. No such guarantees
> exist for IPv4 links.

Hmm, I thought one way to implement an IPv6 over IPv4 tunnel was to basically
rely on IPv4 fragmentation, hence you would actually be using the same mechanism
as for an IPv6-IPv4 translator, then you would be tunneling the IPv6
packet over IPv4,
so your IPv6 mtu would be 20 less than the v4 one, not 20 more which
you get if you
replace the v6 header with a smaller v4 one.

Anyway, this certainly seems like an ipv6-in-ipv4 tunneling mechanism
which would currently work, wouldn't it?

(re: Eric's patch, I think it should protect itself against malicious
PMTU messages with too small MTUs, like 0 or 1 or 68 [not enough for
timestamped ipv6/tcp)
--
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