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]
Date:	Sat, 15 Aug 2015 09:48:26 +0200
From:	Alexander Holler <holler@...oftware.de>
To:	Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>,
	Julian Anastasov <ja@....bg>,
	Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>,
	Kernel Team <Kernel-team@...com>, stable@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v5 00/11] ipv6: Only create RTF_CACHE route after
 encountering pmtu exception

Am 30.07.2015 um 13:57 schrieb Alexander Holler:
> Am 29.07.2015 um 11:25 schrieb Alexander Holler:
>> Am 23.05.2015 um 05:55 schrieb Martin KaFai Lau:
>>
>>> This series is to avoid creating a RTF_CACHE route whenever we are
>>> consulting
>>> the fib6 tree with a new destination.  Instead, only create RTF_CACHE
>>> route
>>> when we see a pmtu exception.
>>
>> That even helps on systems without an IPv6-connection to world because
>> it avoids the IPv6 route add/delete pairs which happened before whenever
>> an IPv6-connection was tried (e.g. by Happy Eyeballs algorithms).
>>
>> I think that's worse a laud. thanks.
>
> Of course, I meant worth. Sorry, but the left part of my brain seems to
> be sometimes in a (maybe forced) power save mode. ;)
>
> Also I wonder how the previous algorithm went into the kernel at all or
> why it wasn't fixed earlier. Anyway, it's great that someone took the
> time to fix that annoying behaviour (I've had on my radar since quiet
> some time).

To complete the discussion, that "annoying behaviour" is also a big 
information leak.

Because routes aren't considered confidential and aren't subject to 
privacy, that broken behaviour enabled *everyone* on the same system to 
see *all* the remote IPv6 systems to which there have been connection 
establishment tries.

E.g. I can see the following on a system when browsing to facebook.com 
and google.com:

--------
[aholler@...bat snetmanmon.git]$ ./snetmanmon snetmanmon.conf.simple_example

snetmanmon V1.3-5-g9f06

(C) 2015 Alexander Holler

(...)
New route 2a00:1450:4001:80c::100a (gateway fe80::21f:7bff:feb4:d13, 
type v6, scope universe) on interface 'virbr0'
New route 2a03:2880:2130:cf05:face:b00c:0:1 (gateway 
fe80::21f:7bff:feb4:d13, type v6, scope universe) on interface 'virbr0'
New route 2a00:1450:4001:80c::1007 (gateway fe80::21f:7bff:feb4:d13, 
type v6, scope universe) on interface 'virbr0'
New route 2a00:1450:400f:803::101f (gateway fe80::21f:7bff:feb4:d13, 
type v6, scope universe) on interface 'virbr0'
New route 2a00:1450:4001:80c::1008 (gateway fe80::21f:7bff:feb4:d13, 
type v6, scope universe) on interface 'virbr0'
New route 2a00:1450:4001:80c::1017 (gateway fe80::21f:7bff:feb4:d13, 
type v6, scope universe) on interface 'virbr0'
New route 2a00:1450:4016:804::200d (gateway fe80::21f:7bff:feb4:d13, 
type v6, scope universe) on interface 'virbr0'
New route 2a00:1450:4001:80c::1000 (gateway fe80::21f:7bff:feb4:d13, 
type v6, scope universe) on interface 'virbr0'
New route 2a00:1450:4001:80c::1016 (gateway fe80::21f:7bff:feb4:d13, 
type v6, scope universe) on interface 'virbr0'
New route 2a00:1450:400f:803::1013 (gateway fe80::21f:7bff:feb4:d13, 
type v6, scope universe) on interface 'virbr0'
New route 2a00:1450:4001:80c::1006 (gateway fe80::21f:7bff:feb4:d13, 
type v6, scope universe) on interface 'virbr0'
New route 2a00:1450:4001:80c::1018 (gateway fe80::21f:7bff:feb4:d13, 
type v6, scope universe) on interface 'virbr0'
New route 2a00:1450:4016:804::2009 (gateway fe80::21f:7bff:feb4:d13, 
type v6, scope universe) on interface 'virbr0'
New route 2a00:1450:4001:80c::1005 (gateway fe80::21f:7bff:feb4:d13, 
type v6, scope universe) on interface 'virbr0'
Route 2a00:1450:4001:80c::100a (gateway fe80::21f:7bff:feb4:d13, type 
v6, scope universe) on interface 'virbr0' was deleted
Route 2a03:2880:2130:cf05:face:b00c:0:1 (gateway 
fe80::21f:7bff:feb4:d13, type v6, scope universe) on interface 'virbr0' 
was deleted
Route 2a00:1450:4001:80c::1000 (gateway fe80::21f:7bff:feb4:d13, type 
v6, scope universe) on interface 'virbr0' was deleted
Route 2a00:1450:4001:80c::1005 (gateway fe80::21f:7bff:feb4:d13, type 
v6, scope universe) on interface 'virbr0' was deleted
Route 2a00:1450:4001:80c::1006 (gateway fe80::21f:7bff:feb4:d13, type 
v6, scope universe) on interface 'virbr0' was deleted
Route 2a00:1450:4001:80c::1007 (gateway fe80::21f:7bff:feb4:d13, type 
v6, scope universe) on interface 'virbr0' was deleted
Route 2a00:1450:4001:80c::1008 (gateway fe80::21f:7bff:feb4:d13, type 
v6, scope universe) on interface 'virbr0' was deleted
Route 2a00:1450:4001:80c::1016 (gateway fe80::21f:7bff:feb4:d13, type 
v6, scope universe) on interface 'virbr0' was deleted
Route 2a00:1450:4001:80c::1017 (gateway fe80::21f:7bff:feb4:d13, type 
v6, scope universe) on interface 'virbr0' was deleted
Route 2a00:1450:4001:80c::1018 (gateway fe80::21f:7bff:feb4:d13, type 
v6, scope universe) on interface 'virbr0' was deleted
Route 2a00:1450:400f:803::1013 (gateway fe80::21f:7bff:feb4:d13, type 
v6, scope universe) on interface 'virbr0' was deleted
Route 2a00:1450:400f:803::101f (gateway fe80::21f:7bff:feb4:d13, type 
v6, scope universe) on interface 'virbr0' was deleted
Route 2a00:1450:4016:804::2009 (gateway fe80::21f:7bff:feb4:d13, type 
v6, scope universe) on interface 'virbr0' was deleted
Route 2a00:1450:4016:804::200d (gateway fe80::21f:7bff:feb4:d13, type 
v6, scope universe) on interface 'virbr0' was deleted
--------
(those deletes happen because I've no IPv6 connection to the outside 
world on that system)

Also this doesn't give me the used URLs (or the user). it gives me quiet 
some good idea about what happens on a system.

Therefor I think it's worse to think about backporting this patch series 
at least to the current long term stable kernel (4.1) too.

Regards,

Alexander Holler
--
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

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ