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: <20150215190008.GA25792@faui40p.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
Date:	Sun, 15 Feb 2015 20:00:08 +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?)

*Bingo* rp_filter did the trick.

nstat is fairly useless to figrue this out, no RPF counters.

Quite strange to see rp_filter. Especilly for multicast. But i haven't
followed linux for many years in this level of detail. I thought
Linux was always weak host model. But even for strong host model,
i can't remember that RPF checking was done in the past (for hosts,
not routers obviously).

Cheers
     Toerless

On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 01:17:44PM -0500, Bill Fink wrote:
> > 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