netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/3] l3mdev icmp error route lookup fixes

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: <47175ae8-e7e8-473c-5103-90bf444db16c@efficios.com>
Date:   Wed, 23 Sep 2020 13:03:03 -0400
From:   Michael Jeanson <mjeanson@...icios.com>
To:     David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Cc:     David <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/3] l3mdev icmp error route lookup fixes

On 2020-09-23 12 h 04, Michael Jeanson wrote:
>> It should work without asymmetric routing; adding the return route to
>> the second vrf as I mentioned above fixes the FRAG_NEEDED problem. It
>> should work for TTL as well.
>>
>> Adding a second pass on the tests with the return through r2 is fine,
>> but add a first pass for the more typical case.
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Before writing new tests I just want to make sure we are trying to fix 
> the same issue. If I add a return route to the red VRF then we don't
> need this patchset because whether the ICMP error are routed using the
> table from the source or destination interface they will reach the 
> source host.
> 
> The issue for which this patchset was sent only happens when the 
> destination interface's VRF doesn't have a route back to the source 
> host. I guess we might question if this is actually a bug or not.
> 
> So the question really is, when a packet is forwarded between VRFs 
> through route leaking and an icmp error is generated, which table should 
> be used for the route lookup? And does it depend on the type of icmp 
> error? (e.g. TTL=1 happens before forwarding, but fragmentation needed 
> happens after when on the destination interface)

As a side note, I don't mind reworking the tests as you requested even 
if the patchset as a whole ends up not being needed and if you think 
they are still useful. I just wanted to make sure we understood each other.

Cheers,

Michael