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  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]
Date:   Wed, 23 Sep 2020 15:12:16 -0400
From:   Michael Jeanson <>
To:     David Ahern <>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <>
Cc:     David <>, netdev <>,
        linux-kernel <>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/3] l3mdev icmp error route lookup fixes

On 2020-09-23 14 h 46, David Ahern wrote:
> On 9/23/20 11:03 AM, Michael Jeanson wrote:
>> 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.
> if you are leaking from VRF 1 to VRF 2 and you do not configure VRF 2
> with how to send to errors back to source - MTU or TTL - then I will
> argue that is a configuration problem, not a bug.
> Now the TTL problem is interesting. You need the FIB lookup to know that
> the packet is forwarded, and by the time of the ttl check in ip_forward
> skb->dev points to the ingress VRF and dst points to the egress VRF. So
> I think the change is warranted.
> Let's do this for the tests:
> 1 pass through all of the tests (TTL and MTU, v4 and v6) with symmetric
> routing configured and make sure they all pass. ie., keep all of them
> and make sure all tests pass. No sense losing the tests and the thoughts
> behind them.
> Add a second pass with the asymmetric routing per the customer setup
> since it motivated the investigation.
> Rename the test to something like It can be
> expanded with more tests related to route leaking as they come up.

Just a final clarification, the asymmetric setup would have no return 
route in VRF 2 and only test the TTL case since the others would fail?

Powered by blists - more mailing lists