netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v1 1/3] gtp: refactor to support flow-based gtp encap and decap

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: <1825145503.799984.1501485696720.JavaMail.zimbra@tpip.net>
Date:   Mon, 31 Jul 2017 09:21:36 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Andreas Schultz <aschultz@...p.net>
To:     Jiannan Ouyang <ouyangj@...com>
Cc:     osmocom-net-gprs <osmocom-net-gprs@...ts.osmocom.org>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, dev@...nvswitch.org,
        pablo <pablo@...filter.org>, laforge <laforge@...monks.org>,
        pshelar@...ira.com,
        wieger ijntema tno <wieger.ijntema.tno@...il.com>,
        yi y yang <yi.y.yang@...el.com>, joe@....org,
        Amar Padmanabhan <amarpadmanabhan@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v1 1/3] gtp: refactor to support flow-based gtp
 encap and decap

Hi Jiannan,

----- On Jul 13, 2017, at 2:44 AM, Jiannan Ouyang ouyangj@...com wrote:

[...]

> -static int gtp_rx(struct pdp_ctx *pctx, struct sk_buff *skb,
> -			unsigned int hdrlen, unsigned int role)
> +static int gtp_rx(struct gtp_dev *gtp, struct sk_buff *skb,
> +		  unsigned int hdrlen, struct sock *sk,
> +		  struct metadata_dst *tun_dst)

Some time ago, there was an extensive discussion about the relation
of PDP context and network devices. You are basically reverting one
of the changes that was made in that context. I think it is wrong to
couple GTP devices and PDP context the way you do here (there are
people that disagree, though).

The GTP network device of one of two structures owning the PDP context,
the other is the GTP socket. GTP network devices and GTP sockets should
be strictly separated.

The GTP network device owns the IP given to the MS, handles mapping
IP's into GTP tunnels (peer GSN + TEIDs) and hands the resulting GTP 
packets of to the GTP socket for sending. The GTP socket decaps the GTP
packet, find the right context and based on information therein passes
it to the GTP network device.

By separating is that way, you can have MS with overlapping or colliding
IP's on the same GTP socket as long as they belong to different GTP network
devices.

We had a length discussion about whether the above scenario makes sense.
I'm not sure if we reached a final verdict, but the 3GPP specifications
clearly permit such a setup.

Regards
Andreas