netdev - Re: Looking for a lost patch

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: <555A0D0E.5040102@redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 18 May 2015 09:02:22 -0700
From:	Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...hat.com>
To:	Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>,
	Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
CC:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, NetDev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Looking for a lost patch

On 05/18/2015 12:38 AM, Steffen Klassert wrote:
> On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 10:47:11AM -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>> So I am in the process of trying to do some work on VTI6 and in the
>> process of doing so I am trying to setup an IPv4 VTI tunnel and I
>> have come across what appears to be a lost patch.
>>
>> So in commit a32452366b72 ("vti4: Don't count header length twice.")
>> the following change was made:
>>
>> diff --git a/net/ipv4/ip_vti.c b/net/ipv4/ip_vti.c
>> index 687ddef..cd62596 100644
>> --- a/net/ipv4/ip_vti.c
>> +++ b/net/ipv4/ip_vti.c
>> @@ -349,7 +349,6 @@ static int vti_tunnel_init(struct net_device *dev)
>>   	memcpy(dev->broadcast, &iph->daddr, 4);
>>
>>   	dev->type		= ARPHRD_TUNNEL;
>> -	dev->hard_header_len	= LL_MAX_HEADER + sizeof(struct iphdr);
>>   	dev->mtu		= ETH_DATA_LEN;
>>   	dev->flags		= IFF_NOARP;
>>   	dev->iflink		= 0;
>>
>> However in commit f895f0cfbb77 ("Merge branch 'master' of
>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/klassert/ipsec") the
>> change appears to have been undone as a result of a merge commit.
>>
>> I'm just wondering which is correct.  Should the hard_header_len be
>> set or unset in vti_tunnel_init?  I ask because I have two kernels
>> and one has the patch and one does not and I am seeing an MTU of
>> 1332 for a VTI tunnel without, and 1480 for a VTI tunnel with.
> A MTU of 1332 is definitively wrong. Actually I think a vti
> tunnel can have a MTU of 1500 because xfrm cares to calculate
> a PMTU based on the used states. The MTU of 1480 is because
> the generic ip_tunnel_bind_dev() assumes that an ip tunnel
> has always the overhead of an additional ip header. On IPsec
> this header is included in the PMTU calculation.

So if I understand correctly then is 1480 the correct MTU or should I be 
looking for some other value?

My initial though was to try and find the maximum overhead that can be 
generated for an IPv4/IPSec tunnel.  However it seems like there isn't 
any solid documentation anywhere on what the upper limit is. I notice a 
number of references use either 1400 or 1412, however these tunnels 
appear to be using either an arbitrary value or a value that seems to 
also account for PPP and GRE overhead.

- Alex
--
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