netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 5/5] ipv6: Compute multipath hash for forwarded ICMP errors from offending packet

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: <CALx6S35gXFU47i5_LF7Hs1JKGvh40OyJ5Sn-TWacbwiFb0VZ9A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 1 Nov 2016 09:39:24 -0700
From:   Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>
To:     Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
Cc:     Jakub Sitnicki <jkbs@...hat.com>,
        Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
        James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
        Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
        Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 5/5] ipv6: Compute multipath hash for forwarded
 ICMP errors from offending packet

On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 9:25 AM, Hannes Frederic Sowa
<hannes@...essinduktion.org> wrote:
> On 31.10.2016 20:25, Tom Herbert wrote:
>> The normal hash for TCP or UDP using ECMP is over <protocol, srcIP,
>> dstIP, srcPort, dstPort>. For an ICMP packet ECMP would most likely be
>> done over <protocol, srcIP, dstIP>. There really is no way to ensure
>> that an ICMP packet will follow the same path as TCP or any other
>> protocol. Fortunately, this is really isn't so terrible. The Internet
>> has worked this way ever since routers started using ports as input to
>> ECMP and that hasn't caused any major meltdown.
>
> The normal hash for forwarding is without srcPort or dstPort, so the
> same as ICMP and especially also because of fragmentation problematic I
> don't think a lot of routers use L4 port information for ECMP either.
>
I don't think we can define a "normal hash". There is no requirement
that routers do ECMP a certain way, or that they do ECMP, or that for
that matter that they even consistently route packets for the same
flow. All of this is optimization, not something we can rely on
operationally. So in the general case, regardless of anything we do in
the stack, either ICMP packets will follow the same path as the flow
are they won't. If they don't things still need to to work. So I still
don't see what material benefit this patch gives us.

Tom

> Bye,
> Hannes
>