netdev - Re: [PATCH ipsec] xfrm: BEET mode doesn't support fragments for inner packets

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

Message-ID: <20210325084430.GV62598@gauss3.secunet.de>
Date:   Thu, 25 Mar 2021 09:44:30 +0100
From:   Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
To:     Xin Long <lucien.xin@...il.com>
CC:     <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Sabrina Dubroca <sd@...asysnail.net>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH ipsec] xfrm: BEET mode doesn't support fragments for
 inner packets

On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 06:27:58PM +0800, Xin Long wrote:
> BEET mode replaces the IP(6) Headers with new IP(6) Headers when sending
> packets. However, when it's a fragment before the replacement, currently
> kernel keeps the fragment flag and replace the address field then encaps
> it with ESP. It would cause in RX side the fragments to get reassembled
> before decapping with ESP, which is incorrect.
> 
> In Xiumei's testing, these fragments went over an xfrm interface and got
> encapped with ESP in the device driver, and the traffic was broken.
> 
> I don't have a good way to fix it, but only to warn this out in dmesg.

Looks like a protocol bug. BEET mode never made it to a standard...

> 
> Reported-by: Xiumei Mu <xmu@...hat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Xin Long <lucien.xin@...il.com>

Applied, thanks!