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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <CANP3RGdv1eoPP-UNrbif92teH_9oO-WA0CZXJsDREwrcYiRODQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 25 Apr 2012 04:55:51 -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

>> (*) Would it be legal for a tunnel endpoint to support ipv6 packets up
>> to 1280 bytes in size
>> but still send back a 'packet to big please use 1K mtu' message?
>
>
> I don't think this is a valid thing to do - either the tunnel server would
> forward the packet through the tunnel (fragmenting the underlaying IPv4 if
> necessary), and *not* send back a ICMPv6 PTB error at the same time, OR: it
> would need to drop the packet and *do* send back the ICMPv6 PTB. Not both
> at the same time.
>
> However, if it is going to drop the large packets and reply with the PTB, it
> will cause a blackhole with current Linux, because if it get the PTB with
> MTU=1000, it will include the frag header, but *not* reduce the actual
> packet
> size. And since this is pure IPv6 routing, the tunnel server will not be
> able
> to fragment the IPv6 packets, since IPv6 routers don't do that (the presense
> of the Fragmentation header does not change this fact).
>
> So the tunnel routers pretty much *must* support an IPv6 MTU of 1280, either
> by ensuring the outer IPv4 MTU is 1300 or larger, or by performing IPv4
> fragmentation and reassembly "under the hood".

I think you could still accept 1280 mtu packets, but for packets >= 1281 mtu
you could return packet to big, please use mtu=1000.

>
> I don't think it is worth while (or even appropriate) for the Linux IPv6
> stack
> to try to optimize for this.

Agreed.  Let's ignore this.
--
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