netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] net/gtp: Add udp source port generation according to flow hash

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20170315162541.GA29639@salvia>
Date:   Wed, 15 Mar 2017 17:25:41 +0100
From:   Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>
To:     Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or@...il.com>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Andreas Schultz <aschultz@...p.net>,
        Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>,
        Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>,
        Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
        laforge <laforge@...monks.org>,
        Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net/gtp: Add udp source port generation
 according to flow hash

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 06:14:02PM +0200, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 7:54 PM, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> > From: Andreas Schultz <aschultz@...p.net>
> > Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 18:19:16 +0100 (CET)
> >
> >> When we are talking about the xmit path, then currently none of the
> >> receivers we are talking to is going to be Linux and we have no
> >> idea how they will behave nor do we have any influence on them. Do
> >> we really need to make assumptions about other vendors implementations?
> >>
> >> Traces on live GRX networks show that about 90% of the SGSN/S-GW
> >> that would talk to us always use the default GTP-U port as source
> >> port. Some multi chassis GSN's seem to assign source port ranges to
> >> chassis, but that has nothing todo with DDOS protection.
> >
> > This is exactly what other UDP tunnel implementations did before
> > flow separation was prevelant.
> >
> > I don't see the point of any of this discussion discouraging the
> > enablement of proper flow separation.
> 
> Hi Dave,
> 
> So where do we  go from here? should I resubmit the patch?

IIRC this patch didn't get into the merge window in time, so it's
reasonable to resubmit I think.

You may want to add this to the patch:

Acked-by: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>

Thanks Or.