netdev - Re: Supporting 4 way connections in LKSCTP

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: <529F4D1A.3050304@gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 04 Dec 2013 10:41:14 -0500
From:	Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@...il.com>
To:	David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
	Sun Paul <paulrbk@...il.com>
CC:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org,
	Karl Heiss <kheiss@...il.com>,
	Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Supporting 4 way connections in LKSCTP

On 12/04/2013 09:50 AM, David Laight wrote:
>>> In normal operation, IP-A sends INIT to IP-X, IP-X returns INIT_ACK to
>>> IP-A. IP-A then sends HB to IP-X, IP-X then returns HB_ACK to IP-A. In
>>> the meantime, IP-B sends HB to IP-Y and IPY returns HB_ACK.
>>>
>>> In case of the path between IP-A and IP-X is broken, IP-B sends INIT
>>> to IP-X, NODE-B uses IP-Y to return INIT_ACK to IP-B. Then IP-B sends
>>> HB to IP-X, and IP-Y returns HB_ACK to IP-B. In the meantime, the HB
>>> communication between IP-B and IP-Y follows the normal flow.
>>>
>>> Can I confirm, is it really valid?
>>
>> As long as NODE-B knows about both IP-A and IP-B, and NODE-A knows about
>> both IP-X and IP-Y (meaning all the addresses were exchanged inside INIT
>> and INIT-ACK), then this situation is perfectly valid.  In fact, this
>> has been tested an multiple interops.
> 
> There are some network configurations that do cause problems.
> Consider 4 systems with 3 LAN segments:
> A) 10.10.10.1 on LAN X and 192.168.1.1 on LAN Y.
> B) 10.10.10.2 on LAN X and 192.168.1.2 on LAN Y.
> C) 10.10.10.3 on LAN X.
> D) 10.10.10.4 on LAN X and 192.168.1.2 on LAN Z.
> There are no routers between the networks (and none of the systems
> are running IP forwarding).
> 
> If A connects to B everything is fine - traffic can use either LAN.
> 
> Connections from A to C are problematic if C tries to send anything
> (except a HB) to 192.168.1.1 before receiving a HB response.
> One of the SCTP stacks we've used did send messages to an
> inappropriate address, but I've forgotten which one.

I guess that would be problematic if A can not receive traffic for
192.168.1.1 on the interface connected to LAN X.  I shouldn't
technically be a problem for C as it should mark the path to 192.168.1.1
as down.  For A, as long as it doesn't decide to ABORT the association,
it shouldn't be a problem either.  It would be interesting to know more
about what problems you've observed.

> 
> Connections between A and D fail unless the HB errors A receives
> for 192.168.1.2 are ignored.

Yes, this configuration is very error prone, especially if system B and
system D are up at the same time.  Any attempts by system A to use
LAN Y will result in an ABORT generated by system B.  I have seen
this issue well in production and we had to renumber system D to solve
it.

-vlad
> 
> Of course the application could explicitly bind to only the 10.x address
> but that requires the application know the exact network topology
> and may be difficult for incoming calls.
> 
> 	David
> 

--
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