netdev - Re: wireguard: problem sending via libpcap's packet socket

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: <20200701141949.b9ed27c6547a2db29a5977d8@hwipl.net>
Date:   Wed, 1 Jul 2020 14:19:49 +0200
From:   Hans Wippel <ndev@...pl.net>
To:     "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
Cc:     Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>,
        Hans Wippel <ndev@...pl.net>,
        WireGuard mailing list <wireguard@...ts.zx2c4.com>,
        Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: wireguard: problem sending via libpcap's packet socket

On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 21:05:27 -0600
"Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 28, 2020 at 2:04 PM Willem de Bruijn
> <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 1:58 AM Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@...c4.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi again Hans,
> > >
> > > A few remarks: although gre implements header_ops, it looks like
> > > various parts of the networking stack change behavior based on it. I'm
> > > still analyzing that to understand the extent of the effects.
> > > Something like <https://git.zx2c4.com/wireguard-linux/commit/?id=40c24fd379edc1668087111506ed3d0928052fe0>
> > > would work, but I'm not thrilled by it. Further research is needed.
> > >
> > > However, one thing I noticed is that other layer 3 tunnels don't seem
> > > to be a fan of libpcap. For example, try injecting a packet into an
> > > ipip interface. You'll hit exactly the same snag for skb->protocol==0.
> >
> > Not setting skb protocol when sending over packet sockets causes many
> > headaches. Besides packet_parse_headers, virtio_net_hdr_to_skb also
> > tries to infer it.
> >
> > Packet sockets give various options to configure it explicitly: by
> > choosing that protocol in socket(), bind() or, preferably, by passing
> > it as argument to sendmsg. The socket/bind argument also configures
> > the filter to receive packets, so for send-only sockets it is
> > especially useful to choose ETH_P_NONE (0) there. This is not an
> > "incorrect" option.
> >
> > Libpcap does have a pcap_set_protocol function, but it is fairly
> > recent, so few processes will likely be using it. And again it is
> > still not ideal if a socket is opened only for transmit.
> >
> > header_ops looks like the best approach to me, too. The protocol field
> > needs to reflect the protocol of the *outer* packet, of course, but if
> > I read wg_allowedips_lookup_dst correctly, wireguard maintains the
> > same outer protocol as the inner protocol, no sit (6-in-4) and such.
> 
> WireGuard does allow 6-in-4 and 4-in-6 actually. But parse_protocol is
> only ever called on the inner packet. The only code paths leading to
> it are af_packet-->ndo_start_xmit, and ndo_start_xmit examines
> skb->protocol of that inner packet, which means it entirely concerns
> the inner packet. And generally, for wireguard, userspace only ever
> deals with the inner packet. That inner packet then gets encrypted and
> poked at in strange ways, and then the encrypted blob of sludge gets
> put into a udp packet and sent some place. So I'm quite sure that the
> behavior just committed is right.
> 
> And from writing a few libpcap examples, things seem to be working
> very well, including Hans' example.
> 
> Hans - if you want to try out davem's net.git tree, you can see if
> this is working properly for you.

I just tested it and everything seems to work now. Thanks :)
  Hans