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  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]
Date:   Tue, 14 Nov 2017 13:59:03 -0800
From:   Shaohua Li <shli@...nel.org>
To:     Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, Martin Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 net 0/2] ipv6: fix flowlabel issue for reset packet

On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 11:13:10AM -0800, Tom Herbert wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Shaohua Li <shli@...nel.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 09:44:51AM -0800, Tom Herbert 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.
> >
> > Hi Tom,
> > Do we really need to use the five-tupe hash? There are several places using
> > current random hash, which looks more lightweight. To fix issue, we only need
> > to make sure reset packet include the correct flowlabel. Like what my previous
> > patch did, we can set tw->tw_flowlabel in tcp_time_wait based on txhash and use
> > it reset packet. In this way we can use the random hash and not add extra field
> > in sock.
> >
> Shaohua,
> 
> But that patch discards the full txhash in TW. So it's not just a
> problem with the flow label. sk_tx_hash can also be used for route
> selection in ECMP, port selection we're doing tunneling, etc. The
> general solution should maintains tx_hash or be able to reconstruct it
> in any state, flow label fix is a point solution.

Hi Tom,

do you want to keep sk_rethink_txhash() then? If we changed the hash to random
number, we can't reconstruct it for sure.

Thanks,
Shaohua

Powered by blists - more mailing lists