netdev - Re: [PATCH net v3] ipv4: allow local fragmentation in ip_finish_output

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1769078966.96766888.1478207154311.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 3 Nov 2016 17:05:54 -0400 (EDT)
From:   Lance Richardson <lrichard@...hat.com>
To:     Shmulik Ladkani <shmulik.ladkani@...il.com>
Cc:     fw@...len.de, hannes@...essinduktion.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        jtluka@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v3] ipv4: allow local fragmentation in
 ip_finish_output_gso()

> From: "Shmulik Ladkani" <shmulik.ladkani@...il.com>
> To: "Lance Richardson" <lrichard@...hat.com>, fw@...len.de, hannes@...essinduktion.org
> Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, jtluka@...hat.com
> Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2016 4:27:51 PM
> Subject: Re: [PATCH net v3] ipv4: allow local fragmentation in ip_finish_output_gso()
> 
> Hi Hannes, Lance,
> 
> On Wed,  2 Nov 2016 16:36:17 -0400 Lance Richardson <lrichard@...hat.com>
> wrote:
> >  
> > -	if (skb_iif && !(df & htons(IP_DF))) {
> > -		/* Arrived from an ingress interface, got encapsulated, with
> > -		 * fragmentation of encapulating frames allowed.
> > -		 * If skb is gso, the resulting encapsulated network segments
> > -		 * may exceed dst mtu.
> > -		 * Allow IP Fragmentation of segments.
> > -		 */
> > -		IPCB(skb)->flags |= IPSKB_FRAG_SEGS;
> > -	}
> 
> Thinking this over, I'm concerned of this change.
> 
> Few months back, we discussed this and got to the conclusion that in the
> "ingress,tunnel,egress" scenario, segments are allowed to be
> fragmented if the original inner ip packet does NOT have the DF.
> 
> See
>   https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/657132/
>   https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/661219/
> 
> I think you expressed that those tunneled skbs already having DF set
> should go through pmtu discovery.
> 
> Suggested patch unconditionally calls skb_gso_validate_mtu().
> 
> Thus we're changing behavior for "ingress,tunnel,egress" scenario of
> the tunneled packets having DF set in the inner iph.
> 
> WDYT?
> 

I'm still digesting the patchwork history, but it seems to me:

   1) If we call skb_gso_validate_mtu() and it returns true, ip_finish_output2() will
      be called, just as before, so nothing changes.

   2) If we were to avoid calling skb_gso_validate_mtu() when it would have returned
      false and call ip_finish_output2() without performing fragmentation, we
      would transmit (or attempt to transmit) a packet that exceeds the configured
      MTU.

   3) If we do call skb_gso_validate_mtu() and it returns false, ip_finish_output_gso()
      will call ip_fragment() to perform needed fragmentation. Whether fragmentation
      actually occurs at this point depends on the value of the DF flag in the
      IP header (and perhaps skb->ignore_df, frag_max_size, etc.).

Is the issue you're pointing out about cases in which the inner IP header has DF set
but the tunnel header does not?

Thanks,

   Lance