netdev - Re: [PATCH v2] ipv6: Use inbound ifaddr as source addresses for ICMPv6 errors

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: <20160830195156.3ibvpbi4254wnput@alphalink.fr>
Date:   Tue, 30 Aug 2016 21:51:56 +0200
From:   Guillaume Nault <g.nault@...halink.fr>
To:     Eli Cooper <elicooper@....com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ipv6: Use inbound ifaddr as source addresses for
 ICMPv6 errors

On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 02:34:32AM +0800, Eli Cooper wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> 
> On 2016/8/29 1:18, Guillaume Nault wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 11:34:06AM +0800, Eli Cooper wrote:
> >> According to RFC 1885 2.2(c), the source address of ICMPv6
> >> errors in response to forwarded packets should be set to the
> >> unicast address of the forwarding interface in order to be helpful
> >> in diagnosis.
> >>
> > FWIW, this behaviour has been deprecated ten years ago by RFC 4443:
> > "The address SHOULD be chosen according to the rules that would be used
> >  to select the source address for any other packet originated by the
> >  node, given the destination address of the packet."
> >
> > The door is left open for other address selection algorithms but, IMHO,
> > changing kernel's behaviour is better justified by real use cases
> > than by obsolete RFCs.
> 
> I agree, sorry for the obsoleted RFC. This is actually motivated by a
> real use case: Say a Linux box is acting as a router that forwards
> packets with policy routing from two local networks to two uplinks,
> respectively. An outside host from is performing traceroute to a host on
> one of the LAN. If the kernel's default route is via the other LAN's
> uplink, it will send ICMPv6 packets with the source address that has
> nothing to do with the network in question, yet the message probably
> will reach the outside host.
> 
> Here using the address of inbound or exiting interface as source address
> is evidently "a more informative choice." I surmise this is the reason
> why the comment reads "Force OUTPUT device used as source address" when
> dealing with hop limit exceeded packets in ip6_forward(), although not
> effectively so. The current behaviour not only confuses diagnosis, but
> also might be undesirable if the addresses of the networks are best kept
> secret from each other.
> 
That makes more sense indeed. Would be nice to have this use case in
the commit message rather than the blind reference to the obsolete RFC.

Regards,

Guillaume