netdev - Re: [PATCH] sctp: check dst validity after IPsec operations

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: <5049E78E.6080908@6wind.com>
Date:	Fri, 07 Sep 2012 14:24:46 +0200
From:	Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>
To:	Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@...il.com>
CC:	sri@...ibm.com, linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sctp: check dst validity after IPsec operations

Le 06/09/2012 19:03, Vlad Yasevich a écrit :
> On 09/06/2012 12:40 PM, Nicolas Dichtel wrote:
>> Le 06/09/2012 18:04, Vlad Yasevich a écrit :
>>> On 09/06/2012 01:40 PM, Nicolas Dichtel wrote:
>>>> dst stored in struct sctp_transport needs to be recalculated when
>>>> ipsec policy
>>>> are updated. We use flow_cache_genid for that.
>>>>
>>>> For example, if a SCTP connection is established and then an IPsec
>>>> policy is
>>>> set, the old SCTP flow will not be updated and thus will not use the new
>>>> IPsec policy.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>
>>>
>>> why doesn't this need to be done for TCP?  What makes SCTP special in
>>> this case?
>> Tests prove that the pb does not exist with TCP. I made the patch some
>> times ago, I will look again deeply to find the difference.
>>
>
> TCP appears to cache the flowi and uses that to re-route the packet.
> However, re-route still seems predicated on dst_check()...
Yes ... but I don't find the difference. Re-route is not done immediately in 
TCP, it takes few seconds.

>
>>>
>>> ip_queue_xmit does an __sk_dst_check() which is essentially what
>>> sctp_transport_dst_check() does.  That should determine if the
>>> currently cached
>>> route is valid or not.
>> The problem is that route will not be invalidated, because dst->check()
>> has no xfrm path so xfrm_dst_check() will never be called.
>>
>
> Shouldn't the cache be invalidated in this case?  If the cache is invalidated,
> that should cause a new lookup.  If the cache isn't invalidated, then any
> established connections that may now be impacted by the policy will not pick it up.
Yes, you're right. If I flush the cache manually (with the sysctl), route are 
correctly updated.
I will send a new proposal.


Regards,
Nicolas
--
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