| 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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 16:03:13 -0300
From: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>
To: Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@...il.com>
Cc: Michael Tuexen <tuexen@...muenster.de>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org, Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next] sctp: fix src address selection if using
secondary addresses
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 03:27:02PM -0300, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 01:14:21PM -0400, Vlad Yasevich wrote:
> > On 07/10/2015 12:17 PM, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 11:35:28AM -0400, Vlad Yasevich wrote:
...
> > >> have been numerous times where I've seen weak host model in use on the wire
> > >> even with a BSD peer.
> > >>
> > >> This also puts a very big nail through many suggestions we've had over the years
> > >> to allow source based path multihoming in addition to destination based multihoming
> > >> we currently support.
> > >>
> > >> It might be a good idea to make rp-filter like behavior best effort, and have
> > >> the old behavior as fallback. I am still trying to think up different scenarios
> > >> where rp-filter behavior will cause things to fail prematurely...
> > >
> > > The old behavior is like "if we don't have a src yet and can't find a
> > > preferred src for this dst, use the 1st bound address". We can add it
> > > but as I said, I'm afraid it is just doing wrong and not worth. If such
> > > randomly src addressed packet is meant to be routed, the router will
> > > likely drop it as it is seen as a spoof. And if it reaches the peer, it
> > > will probably come back through a different path.
> > >
> > > I'm tempted to say that current usual use cases are handled by the first
> > > check on this function, which returns the preferred/primary address for
> > > the interface and checks against bound addresses. Whenever you reach the
> > > second check, it just allows you to use that 1st bound address that is
> > > checked. I mean, I can't see use cases that we would be breaking with
> > > this change.
> >
> > Yes, the secondary check didn't amount to much, but we've kept it since 2.5
> > days (when sctp was introduced). I've made attempts over the years to
> > try to make it stricter, but that never amounted to anything that worked well.
> >
> > >
> > > But yeah, it impacts source based routing, and I'm not aware of previous
> > > discussions on it. I'll try to dig some up but if possible, please share
> > > some pointers on it.
> >
> > It's been suggested a few times that we should support source based multihoming
> > particularly for the case where one peer has only 1 address.
> > We've always punted on this, but people still ask every now and then.
>
> Ah okay, now I see it.
>
> > I do have a question about the code though.. Have you tried with mutlipath routing
> > enabled. I see rp_filter checks have special code to handle that. Seem like we
> > might get false negatives in sctp.
>
> In the sense of CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_MULTIPATH=y, yes, but just that. My
> routes were simple ones, either 2 peers attaches to 2 local subnets, or
> with a gateway in the middle (with 2 subnets on each side, but mapped
> 1-1, no crossing. Aka subnet1<->subnet2 and subnet3<->subnet4 while not
> (subnet1<->subnet4 or subnet3<->subnet2).
>
> Note that this is not rp_filter strictly speaking, as it's mirrored.
> rp_filter needs to calculate all possible output routes (actually until
> it finds a valid one) for finding one that would match the one used for
> incoming.
>
> This check already has an output path, and it's calculating if such
> input would be acceptable. We can't really expect/check for other hits
> because it invalidates the chosen output path.
>
> Hmmm... but we could support multipath in the output selection, ie in
> the outputs of ip_route_output_key(), probably in another patch then?
Thinking further.. we could just compare it with the addresses assigned to the
interface instead of doing a whole new routing. Cheaper/faster, provides the
results I'm looking for and the consequences are easier to see.
Something like (not tested, just illustrating the idea):
--- a/net/sctp/protocol.c
+++ b/net/sctp/protocol.c
@@ -489,22 +489,33 @@ static void sctp_v4_get_dst(struct sctp_transport *t, union sctp_addr *saddr,
list_for_each_entry_rcu(laddr, &bp->address_list, list) {
if (!laddr->valid)
continue;
if ((laddr->state == SCTP_ADDR_SRC) &&
(AF_INET == laddr->a.sa.sa_family)) {
+ struct net_device *odev;
+
fl4->fl4_sport = laddr->a.v4.sin_port;
flowi4_update_output(fl4,
asoc->base.sk->sk_bound_dev_if,
RT_CONN_FLAGS(asoc->base.sk),
daddr->v4.sin_addr.s_addr,
laddr->a.v4.sin_addr.s_addr);
rt = ip_route_output_key(sock_net(sk), fl4);
- if (!IS_ERR(rt)) {
- dst = &rt->dst;
- goto out_unlock;
- }
+ if (IS_ERR(rt))
+ continue;
+
+ /* Ensure the src address belongs to the output
+ * interface.
+ */
+ odev = __ip_dev_find(net, laddr->a.v4.sin_addr.s_addr,
+ false);
+ if (odev->if_index != fl4->flowi4_oif)
+ continue;
+
+ dst = &rt->dst;
+ goto out_unlock;
}
}
out_unlock:
rcu_read_unlock();
I like this better than my 1st attempt. What do you think?
I'll split the refactoring from this fix on v2, so it's easier to review.
Marcelo
--
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