netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] l2tp: add peer

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: <20180103141635.GD1402@alphalink.fr>
Date:   Wed, 3 Jan 2018 15:16:35 +0100
From:   Guillaume Nault <g.nault@...halink.fr>
To:     Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo.bianconi@...hat.com>
Cc:     James Chapman <jchapman@...alix.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] l2tp: add peer_offset parameter

On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 08:28:03PM +0100, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
> Perhaps I am little bit polarized on UABI issue, but I was rethinking
> about it and maybe removing offset parameter would lead to an
> interoperability issue for device running L2TPv3 since offset
> parameter is there and it is not a nope.
> Please consider this setup:
> - 2 endpoint running L2TPv3, the first running net-next and the second
> running 4.14
> - both endpoint are configured using iproute2 in this way:
> 
>   - ip l2tp add tunnel local <ip0> remote <ip1> tunnel_id <id0>
> peer_tunnel_id <id1> udp_sport <p0> udp_dport <p1>
>   - ip l2tp add tunnel local <ip1> remote <ip0> tunnel_id <id1>
> peer_tunnel_id <id0> udp_sport <p1> udp_dport <p0>
>   - ip l2tp add session name l2tp0 tunnel_id <id0> session_id <s0>
> peer_session_id <s1> offset 8
>   - ip l2tp add session name l2tp0 tunnel_id <id1> session_id <s1>
> peer_session_id <s0> offset 8
> 
> Can we assume offset is never used for L2TPv3?
>
That's what I think. You're right worrying about ABI issues. And I
wouldn't dare proposing such a removal if I had doubts about breaking a
user setup.

Considering the lack of use cases and the absence of interoperability
of this feature, I hardly can imagine it being used.
But it's not only that: the feature has been buggy for years without
anyone noticing. And this bug wasn't difficult to spot (one just needs
to look at an L2TPv3 header in a network packet dump).

It's really the combination of these three issues (buggy, no use case
and not producing valid L2TPv3 frames) that makes me propose a removal.