netdev - Re: VRF Issue Since kernel 5

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: <b300235a-00f8-0689-8544-9db07cbd1e21@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 11 Sep 2019 18:02:01 +0100
From:   David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
To:     Gowen <gowen@...atocomputing.co.uk>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: VRF Issue Since kernel 5

At LPC this week and just now getting a chance to process the data you sent.

On 9/9/19 8:46 AM, Gowen wrote:
> the production traffic is all in the 10.0.0.0/8 network (eth1 global VRF) except for a few subnets (DNS) which are routed out eth0 (mgmt-vrf)
> 
> 
> Admin@...M06:~$ ip route show
> default via 10.24.12.1 dev eth0
> 10.0.0.0/8 via 10.24.12.1 dev eth1
> 10.24.12.0/24 dev eth1 proto kernel scope link src 10.24.12.9
> 10.24.65.0/24 via 10.24.12.1 dev eth0
> 10.25.65.0/24 via 10.24.12.1 dev eth0
> 10.26.0.0/21 via 10.24.12.1 dev eth0
> 10.26.64.0/21 via 10.24.12.1 dev eth0

interesting route table. This is default VRF but you have route leaking
through eth0 which is in mgmt-vrf.

> 
> 
> Admin@...M06:~$ ip route show vrf mgmt-vrf
> default via 10.24.12.1 dev eth0
> unreachable default metric 4278198272
> 10.24.12.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 10.24.12.10
> 10.24.65.0/24 via 10.24.12.1 dev eth0
> 10.25.65.0/24 via 10.24.12.1 dev eth0
> 10.26.0.0/21 via 10.24.12.1 dev eth0
> 10.26.64.0/21 via 10.24.12.1 dev eth0

The DNS servers are 10.24.65.203 or 10.24.64.203 which you want to go
out mgmt-vrf. correct?

10.24.65.203 should hit the route "10.24.65.0/24 via 10.24.12.1 dev
eth0" for both default VRF and mgmt-vrf.

10.24.64.203 will NOT hit a route leak entry so traverse the VRF
associated with the context of the command (mgmt-vrf or default). Is
that intentional? (verify with: `ip ro get 10.24.64.203 fibmatch` and
`ip ro get 10.24.64.203 vrf mgmt-vrf fibmatch`)


> 
> 
> 
> The strange activity occurs when I enter the command “sudo apt update” as I can resolve the DNS request (10.24.65.203 or 10.24.64.203, verified with tcpdump) out eth0 but for the actual update traffic there is no activity:
> 
> 
> sudo tcpdump -i eth0 '(host 10.24.65.203 or host 10.25.65.203) and port 53' -n
> <OUTPUT OMITTED FOR BREVITY>
> 10:06:05.268735 IP 10.24.12.10.39963 > 10.24.65.203.53: 48798+ [1au] A? security.ubuntu.com. (48)
> <OUTPUT OMITTED FOR BREVITY>
> 10:06:05.284403 IP 10.24.65.203.53 > 10.24.12.10.39963: 48798 13/0/1 A 91.189.91.23, A 91.189.88.24, A 91.189.91.26, A 91.189.88.162, A 91.189.88.149, A 91.189.91.24, A 91.189.88.173, A 91.189.88.177, A 91.189.88.31, A 91.189.91.14, A 91.189.88.176, A 91.189.88.175, A 91.189.88.174 (256)
> 
> 
> 
> You can see that the update traffic is returned but is not accepted by the stack and a RST is sent
> 
> 
> Admin@...M06:~$ sudo tcpdump -i eth0 '(not host 168.63.129.16 and port 80)' -n
> tcpdump: verbose output suppressed, use -v or -vv for full protocol decode
> listening on eth0, link-type EN10MB (Ethernet), capture size 262144 bytes
> 10:17:12.690658 IP 10.24.12.10.40216 > 91.189.88.175.80: Flags [S], seq 2279624826, win 64240, options [mss 1460,sackOK,TS val 2029365856 ecr 0,nop,wscale 7], length 0
> 10:17:12.691929 IP 10.24.12.10.52362 > 91.189.95.83.80: Flags [S], seq 1465797256, win 64240, options [mss 1460,sackOK,TS val 3833463674 ecr 0,nop,wscale 7], length 0
> 10:17:12.696270 IP 91.189.88.175.80 > 10.24.12.10.40216: Flags [S.], seq 968450722, ack 2279624827, win 28960, options [mss 1418,sackOK,TS val 81957103 ecr 2029365856,nop,wscale 7], length 0                                                                                                                            
> 10:17:12.696301 IP 10.24.12.10.40216 > 91.189.88.175.80: Flags [R], seq 2279624827, win 0, length 0
> 10:17:12.697884 IP 91.189.95.83.80 > 10.24.12.10.52362: Flags [S.], seq 4148330738, ack 1465797257, win 28960, options [mss 1418,sackOK,TS val 2257624414 ecr 3833463674,nop,wscale 8], length 0                                                                                                                         
> 10:17:12.697909 IP 10.24.12.10.52362 > 91.189.95.83.80: Flags [R], seq 1465797257, win 0, length 0
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can emulate the DNS lookup using netcat in the vrf:
> 
> 
> sudo ip vrf exec mgmt-vrf nc -u 10.24.65.203 53
> 

`ip vrf exec mgmt-vrf <COMMAND>` means that every IPv4 and IPv6 socket
opened by <COMMAND> is automatically bound to mgmt-vrf which causes
route lookups to hit the mgmt-vrf table.

Just running <COMMAND> (without binding to any vrf) means no socket is
bound to anything unless the command does a bind. In that case the
routing lookups determine which egress device is used.

Now the response comes back, if the ingress interface is a VRF then the
socket lookup wants to match on a device.

Now, a later response shows this for DNS lookups:

  isc-worker0000 20261 [000]  2215.013849: fib:fib_table_lookup: table
10 oif 0 iif 0 proto 0 0.0.0.0/0 -> 127.0.0.1/0 tos 0 scope 0 flags 0
==> dev eth0 gw 10.24.12.1 src 10.24.12.10 err 0
  isc-worker0000 20261 [000]  2215.013915: fib:fib_table_lookup: table
10 oif 4 iif 1 proto 17 0.0.0.0/52138 -> 127.0.0.53/53 tos 0 scope 0
flags 4 ==> dev eth0 gw 10.24.12.1 src 10.24.12.10 err 0
  isc-worker0000 20261 [000]  2220.014006: fib:fib_table_lookup: table
10 oif 4 iif 1 proto 17 0.0.0.0/52138 -> 127.0.0.53/53 tos 0 scope 0
flags 4 ==> dev eth0 gw 10.24.12.1 src 10.24.12.10 err 0

which suggests your process is passing off the DNS lookup to a local
process (isc-worker) and it hits the default route for mgmt-vrf when it
is trying to connect to a localhost address.

For mgmt-vrf I suggest always adding 127.0.0.1/8 to the mgmt vrf device
(and ::1/128 for IPv6 starting with 5.x kernels - I forget the exact
kernel version).

That might solve your problem; it might not.

(BTW: Cumulus uses fib rules for DNS servers to force DNS packets out
the mgmt-vrf interface.)