netdev - Re: Q: bad routing table cache entries

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: <56953560.9050906@list.ru>
Date:	Tue, 12 Jan 2016 20:18:24 +0300
From:	Stas Sergeev <stsp@...t.ru>
To:	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
Cc:	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Sowmini Varadhan <sowmini.varadhan@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: Q: bad routing table cache entries

12.01.2016 20:06, Hannes Frederic Sowa пишет:
> On 12.01.2016 17:56, Stas Sergeev wrote:
>> 12.01.2016 19:42, Stas Sergeev пишет:
>>> 12.01.2016 19:10, Hannes Frederic Sowa пишет:
>>>> On 12.01.2016 17:03, Stas Sergeev wrote:
>>>>> 12.01.2016 18:52, Hannes Frederic Sowa пишет:
>>>>>> On 12.01.2016 16:34, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
>>>>>>> On 29.12.2015 11:54, Stas Sergeev wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hello.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I was hitting a strange problem when some internet hosts
>>>>>>>> suddenly stops responding until I reboot. ping to these
>>>>>>>> host gives "Destination Host Unreachable". After the
>>>>>>>> initial confusion, I've finally got to
>>>>>>>> ip route get
>>>>>>>> and got something quite strange.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Example for GOOD address (the one that I can ping):
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ip route get 91.189.89.237
>>>>>>>> 91.189.89.237 via 192.168.8.1 dev eth0  src 192.168.10.202
>>>>>>>>        cache
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Example for BAD address (the one that stopped responding):
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ip route get 91.189.89.238
>>>>>>>> 91.189.89.238 via 192.168.0.1 dev eth0  src 192.168.10.202
>>>>>>>>        cache <redirected>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I tried to understand this thread and now wonder why this redirect route
>>>>>>> isn't there always. Can you please summarize again why this shouldn't
>>>>>>> happen? It looks totally fine to me from the configuration of your
>>>>>>> router and the subnet masks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just an addendum:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In IPv6 a redirect is seen as a notification telling hosts, this new address is on the same link as you. I think this semantic is the same for IPv4, so we are informing you that in essence you are
>>>>>> getting a /32 route installed to your new interface and can do link layer resolving of the new host.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I do think this is valid and fine.
>>>>> You can't call "valid and fine" something that doesn't
>>>>> work, at first place. Why and where does it fail, was the
>>>>> subject of this thread.
>>>>
>>>> In terms of the shared media specification <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1620> it is valid and fine.
>>> Good luck sending users to RFC without giving any explanations. :)
> 
> It explains how and what extensions need to be added to an ip routing/host device to deal better with shared media.
> 
>>> Well, yes, an interesting reading, but:
>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1812
>>> ---
>>>     Routers MUST NOT generate a Redirect Message unless all the following
>>>     conditions are met:
>>>
>>>     o The packet is being forwarded out the same physical interface that
>>>        it was received from,
>>>
>>>     o The IP source address in the packet is on the same Logical IP
>>>        (sub)network as the next-hop IP address, and
>>>
>>>     o The packet does not contain an IP source route option.
>>>
>>>     The source address used in the ICMP Redirect MUST belong to the same
>>>     logical (sub)net as the destination address.
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Could you please explain why the above does not apply?
>> Also the rfc1620 you pointed, seems to be saying this:
>>
>>                  A Redirect message SHOULD be silently discarded if the
>>                  new router address it specifies is not on the same
>>                  connected (sub-) net through which the Redirect arrived,
>>                  or if the source of the Redirect is not the current
>>                  first-hop router for the specified destination.
>>
>> It seems, this is exactly the rule we were trying to find
>> during the thread. And it seems violated, either. Unless I am
>> mis-interpreting it, of course.
> 
> If you read on you will read that with shared_media this exact clause (the first of those) is not in effect any more.
OK. But how to get such a redirect to work, if (checked with
tcpdump) the packets do not even go to eth0, but to "lo"?
And how to deal with the above quote from rfc1812?

> I don't know why shared_media=1 is the default in Linux, this decision was made long before I joined here. Anyway, with shared_media=1 this is absolutely the required behavior.
Then it should work. How? :)