netdev - Re: [PATCH] xfrm:fragmented ipv4 tunnel packets in inner interface

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 4 Nov 2020 20:41:43 -0800
From:   Maciej Żenczykowski <maze@...gle.com>
To:     "lina.wang" <lina.wang@...iatek.com>
Cc:     Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
        Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
        Linux NetDev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kernel hackers <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org,
        Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@...gle.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfrm:fragmented ipv4 tunnel packets in inner interface

On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 7:53 PM lina.wang <lina.wang@...iatek.com> wrote:
>
> Besides several operators donot fragment packets even DF bit is not set,
> and instead just drop packets which they think big, maybe they have a
> consideration--- fragmentation is expensive for both the router that
> fragments and for the host that reassembles.
>
> BTW, ipv6 has the different behaviour when it meets such scenary, which
> is what we expected,ipv4 should follow the same thing. otherwise,
> packets are drop, it is a serious thing, and there is no hints. What we
> do is just fragmenting smaller packets, or is it possible to give us
> some flag or a sysctl to allow us to change the behaviour?
>
> On Thu, 2020-09-17 at 19:19 +0800, lina.wang wrote:
> > But it is not just one operator's broken router or misconfigured
> > router.In the whole network, it is common to meet that router will drop
> > bigger packet silently.I think we should make code more compatible.and
> > the scenary is wifi calling, which mostly used udp,you know, udp
> > wouldnot retransmit.It is serious when packet is dropped
> >
> > On Thu, 2020-09-17 at 09:46 +0200, Steffen Klassert wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 08:17:40PM +0800, lina.wang wrote:
> > > > We didnot get the router's log, which is some operator's.Actually, after
> > > > we patched, there is no such issue. Sometimes,router will return
> > > > packet-too-big, most of times nothing returned,dropped silently
> > >
> > > This looks like a broken router, we can't fix that in the code.
> > >
> > > > On Tue, 2020-09-15 at 11:32 +0200, Steffen Klassert wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 05:05:22PM +0800, lina.wang wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, DF bit is not set.
> > > > >
> > > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > > Those two packets are fragmented to one big udp packet, which payload is 1516B.
> > > > > > After getting rid of tunnel header, it is also a udp packet, which payload is
> > > > > > 1466 bytes.It didnot get any response for this packet.We guess it is dropped
> > > > > > by router. Because if we reduced the length, it got response.
> > > > >
> > > > > If the DF bit is not set, the router should fragment the packet. If it
> > > > > does not do so, it is misconfigured. Do you have access to that router?

I'm afraid I don't really understand the exact scenario from the
description of the patch.

However... a few questions come to mind.
(a) why not set the DF flag, does the protocol require > mtu udp frames
(b) what is the mtu of the inner tunnel device, and what is the mtu on
the route through the device?
- shouldn't we be udp fragmenting to the route/device mtu?
maybe stuff is simply misconfigured...