netdev - Re: [PATCH V4 net 0/2] ipv6: fix flowlabel issue for reset 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]

Date:   Wed, 8 Nov 2017 12:01:53 -0800
From:   Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     Martin Lau <kafai@...com>, Shaohua Li <shli@...nel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 net 0/2] ipv6: fix flowlabel issue for reset packet

On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 9:44 AM, Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 3:27 PM, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
>> From: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>
>> Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 13:51:36 -0700
>>
>>> It seems like that middle box specifically drops TCP_RST if it
>>> does not know anything about this flow.  Since the flowlabel of the TCP_RST
>>> (sent in TW state) is always different, it always lands to a different middle
>>> box.  All of these TCP_RST cannot be delivered.
>>
>> This really is illegal behavior.  The flow label is not a flow _KEY_
>> by any definition whatsoever.
>>
>> Flow labels are an optimization, not a determinant for flow matching
>> particularly for proper TCP state processing.
>>
>> I'd rather you invest all of this energy getting that vendor to fix
>> their kit.
>>
> We're now seeing several router vendors recommending people to not use
> flow labels for ECMP hashing. This is precisely because when a flow
> label changes, network devices that maintain state (firewalls, NAT,
> load balancers) can't deal with packets being rerouted so connections
> are dropped. Unfortunately, the need for packets of a flow to always
> follow the same path has become an implicit requirement that I think
> we need follow at least as the default behavior.
>
> Martin: is there any change you could resurrect these patches? In
> order to solve the general problem of making routing consistent, I
> believe we want to keep sk_tx_hash consistent for the connection from
> which a consistent flow label can be derived. To avoid the overhead of
> a hash field in sk_common, maybe we could initially set a connection
> hash to a five-tuple hash for a flow instead of a random value? So in
> TW state the consistent hash can be computed on the fly.
>
Sorry, I failed to give credit to Shaohua for submitting the initial
patch. Please take look!

> Tom