netdev - Re: vnet problem (bug? feature?)

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: <20150215101206.GA13772@faui40p.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
Date:	Sun, 15 Feb 2015 11:12:06 +0100
From:	Toerless Eckert <tte@...fau.de>
To:	Bill Fink <billfink@...dspring.com>
Cc:	Cong Wang <cwang@...pensource.com>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: vnet problem (bug? feature?)

Thanks, Bill.

Unfortunately, that kernel var didn't do the trick. I had tried to reverse
the direction in before too, so if the namespace was doing RPF check and accepting
from only one interfce, than one direction should have worked.

Cheers
    Toerless

On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 01:17:44PM -0500, Bill Fink wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Feb 2015, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> 
> > Thanks for replying, Cong.
> > 
> > On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 03:48:14PM -0800, Cong Wang wrote:
> > > > - Created vnet pair
> > > > - NOT putting them into different namespaces.
> > > > - Unicast across them works fine.
> > > > - When sending IP multicsast into one end, i can not receive it on the other side
> > > >   (with normal socket API applications).
> > > 
> > > Hmm, what does your routing table look like?
> > >
> > > They are in the same namespace, so in the same stack, so their IP addresses
> > > belong to the same stack.
> > 
> > Sure, but it must be possible to send/receive multicast packets to/from a specific
> > interface. For example link-local-scope multicast. Which works.
> > 
> > Just repeated with a mint 17, 3.13 kernel, same result:
> > 
> > ip link add name veth1 type veth peer name veth2
> > ip addr add 10.0.0.1/24 dev veth1
> > ip addr add 10.0.0.2/24 dev veth2
> > ip link set dev veth1 up
> > ip link set dev veth2 up
> 
> Did you try disabling reverse path filtering:
> 
> echo 0 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/veth1/rp_filter
> echo 0 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/veth2/rp_filter
> 
> Both veth1 and veth2 are in the same subnet, but only one
> (presumably veth1) is the expected source for packets coming
> from net 10, so when the muticast packets from a net 10
> source arrive on veth2, they are rejected for arriving
> on the wrong interface.
> 
> You could check this with "nstat -z | grep -i filter".
> 
> The above is an educated guess on my part, and could
> be something completely different.
> 
> 					-Bill
> 
> 
> 
> > Receiver socket, eg: on veth2:
> >    socket(AF_INET, SOCK_DGRAM, IPPROTO_UDP)
> >    setsockopt(SO_REUSEADDR, 1)
> >    bind(0.0.0.0/<port>)
> >    setsockopt(IP_ADD_MEMBERSHIP, 224.0.0.33/10.0.0.2)
> > 
> >    check wih "netstat -gn" that there is IGMP membership on veth2:
> >    veth2           1      224.0.0.33
> > 
> > Sender socket, eg: on veth1:
> >    socket(AF_INET, SOCK_DGRAM, IPPROTO_UDP)
> >    setsockopt(SO_REUSEADDR, 1)
> >    bind(10.0.0.1/7000)
> >    connect(224.0.0.33/<port>)
> > 
> > Sending packet, check how they're transmitted:
> >    - TX countes on veth1 go up (ifconfig output)
> >    - RX counters on veth2 go up (ifconfig output)
> >    - tcpdump -i veth2 -P in shows packets being received
> >    - tcpdump -i veth1 -P out shows packets being sent
> > 
> > Played around with lots of parameters:
> >    - same behavior for non-link-local-scope multicast, TTL > 1 doesn't elp.
> >    - same behavior if setting "multicast, "allmulticast", "promiscuous" on the veth
> >    - same behavior when setting IP_MULTICAST_LOOP on sender.
> > 
> > Routing table:
> > netstat -r -n
> > Kernel IP routing table
> > Destination     Gateway         Genmask         Flags   MSS Window  irtt Iface
> > 0.0.0.0         192.168.1.254   0.0.0.0         UG        0 0          0 eth1
> > 10.0.0.0        0.0.0.0         255.255.255.0   U         0 0          0 veth1
> > 10.0.0.0        0.0.0.0         255.255.255.0   U         0 0          0 veth2
> > 192.168.1.0     0.0.0.0         255.255.255.0   U         0 0          0 eth1
> > 
> > And of course it works if one side is put into a separate namespace,
> > but that doesn't help me.
> > 
> > But: it really seems to be a problem with the kernel/sockets, not with veth.
> > Just replaced the veth pair with a pair of ethernets with a loopback cable and
> > pretty much exactly the same result (except that receiver side does not see
> > packets in RX unless it's promiscuous or has a real receiver socket, but that's
> > perfect). But not being a veth problem but other kernel network stack "feature"
> > doesn't make it right IMHO. I can't see by which "logic" the receiver socket
> > seemingly does not care about these packets even though it's explicitly bound
> > to the interface and the multicast group. "Gimme the darn packets, socket,
> > they are received on the interface"! ;-))
> > 
> > I can play around with the receiver side socket API call details, but i really
> > don't see why those should be different if the packets happen to be looped
> > than if they're not.
> > 
> > Cheers
> >     Toerless
> --
> 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

-- 
---
Toerless.Eckert@...ormatik.uni-erlangen.de
/C=de/A=d400/P=uni-erlangen/OU=informatik/S=Eckert/G=Toerless/
--
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