Message-ID: <CAGugRbUxiM2--ZmobK9Gy-U_nSWv7m0MVzONJ8vfh4pc8fBHVA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 16 Jul 2014 08:26:52 -0400
From:	Karl Heiss <kheiss@...il.com>
To:	Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: IPSEC: tunnel breakage with out-of-order IPv4 fragments

On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 7:49 AM, Karl Heiss <kheiss@...il.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 6:59 AM, Steffen Klassert
> <steffen.klassert@...unet.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 08:13:01AM -0400, Karl Heiss wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 5:16 AM, Steffen Klassert
>>> <steffen.klassert@...unet.com> wrote:
>>> > On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 07:52:23AM -0400, Karl Heiss wrote:
>>> >> On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 5:33 AM, Steffen Klassert
>>> >> <steffen.klassert@...unet.com> wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Your tcpdump looks interesting. Is it possible that all your
>>> >> > fragmented packets have the id field set to 'id 0'? This should
>>> >> > be only the case if the DF flag is set on that packet, but this
>>> >> > is apparently not the case here. If all the fragmented packets
>>> >> > have id 0, it is not possible to determine the correct fragment
>>> >> > chain. If only one fragment gets lost, all further packets might
>>> >> > be reassembled wrong.
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >> Yes, all fragments have 'id 0'.
>>> >>
>>> >> > When looking at the code, is seems that sctp sets the DF flag
>>> >> > on packets as the default. The IPsec encapsulation code copies
>>> >> > the DF bit from the inner header and sets 'id 0' in this case.
>>> >> > A first guess would be that someone removes the DF flag after
>>> >> > the IPsec encapsulation.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Is the DF flag set on your inner sctp packets?
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >> Yes, the inner packets have DF set, but the outer do not.
>>> >
>>> > So we need to find where the DF flag disappears.
>>>
>>> I feel like we may be focusing on two different things.  I am more
>>> interested in figuring out why the receive side does not handle these
>>> packets gracefully.  I would assume that the missing/reordered
>>> fragments may not get reassembled correctly and would be dropped,
>>> which is OK.  However, it is when this event occurs and then every
>>> subsequent, correctly ordered, fragmented packet is dropped that I am
>>> concerned about.  While the sender may be in a broken state, the
>>> receiver should be consistent with receive behavior, agreed?
>>
>> Ugh. No, not at all. The sender causes these problems on the receive
>> side by using 'id 0' on all fragments. The id field is used to
>> determine which fragments belong to which packet. The id must
>> be unique for each fragmented packet. I.e. all fragments of a
>> given packet must have the same id, fragments of other packets
>> must have different id values. If all fragmented packets have
>> the same id, they get reassembled in the order they arrive.
>> Say the second fragment of packet A gets lost, then the first
>> fragment of Packet A is reassembled with the second fragment
>> of packet B and so on. This leads to authentication failures
>> as you observe it.
>
> If this is the case, is that not a security concern?  Anyone can spoof
> fragments with just the source and destination IPs, id of 0, the SPI,
> and cause any subsequent fragments to be invalidated, regardless of
> order.  You say that fragments get reassembled in the order that they
> arrive, but the code says otherwise, since it pays attention to the MF
> and offset values.  I 100% agree that the receiver cannot possibly
> differentiate between fragments when all of them have 'id 0', but it
> should be able to recover once the reordering event has passed due to
> the MF and offset values.  Should the receive side not be smart enough
> to at least drop packets that do not authenticate due to reordering
> but subsequent packets which are ordered correctly pass through
> cleanly?
>

Disregard my earlier statements.  I realized that even with the MF and
offset, there is still no way to be sure that the ordering is correct.

>>
>>>
>>> >
>>> > Can you describe your usecase more precisely? Do you use
>>> > any additional tunnel like ipip/gre etc. or packet mangling?
>>>
>>> I apologize, I did leave out one critical bit of information in that
>>> the sender is based on a RHEL 6.5 kernel with a backported 3.4.75 SCTP
>>> stack.  As for other mangling or anything else, the case is as
>>> straightforward as originally described.  I will try and see if I can
>>> find which combination of commits need to be removed to allow this
>>> case on the sending side.  I didn't think to elaborate on the sending
>>> side as I was solely concentrating on the receive aspect :(
>>
>> Please try with unpatched kernels from kernel.org on the sender and
>> the receiver.
--
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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists