netdev - Re: traceroute failure in kernel 6.1 and 6.2

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: <eaab7495-53d5-0026-842c-acb420408cd0@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 23 Jan 2023 21:25:14 +0200
From:   Mantas Mikulėnas <grawity@...il.com>
To:     Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: traceroute failure in kernel 6.1 and 6.2

On 2023-01-23 17:21, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 21, 2023 at 7:09 PM Mantas Mikulėnas <grawity@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Not sure whether this has been reported, but:
>>
>> After upgrading from kernel 6.0.7 to 6.1.6 on Arch Linux, unprivileged
>> ICMP traceroute using the `traceroute -I` tool stopped working – it very
>> reliably fails with a "No route to host" at some point:
>>
>>          myth> traceroute -I 83.171.33.188
>>          traceroute to 83.171.33.188 (83.171.33.188), 30 hops max, 60
>>          byte packets
>>           1  _gateway (192.168.1.1)  0.819 ms
>>          send: No route to host
>>          [exited with 1]
>>
>> while it still works for root:
>>
>>          myth> sudo traceroute -I 83.171.33.188
>>          traceroute to 83.171.33.188 (83.171.33.188), 30 hops max, 60
>>          byte packets
>>           1  _gateway (192.168.1.1)  0.771 ms
>>           2  * * *
>>           3  10.69.21.145 (10.69.21.145)  47.194 ms
>>           4  82-135-179-168.static.zebra.lt (82.135.179.168)  49.124 ms
>>           5  213-190-41-3.static.telecom.lt (213.190.41.3)  44.211 ms
>>           6  193.219.153.25 (193.219.153.25)  77.171 ms
>>           7  83.171.33.188 (83.171.33.188)  78.198 ms
>>
>> According to `git bisect`, this started with:
>>
>>          commit 0d24148bd276ead5708ef56a4725580555bb48a3
>>          Author: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
>>          Date:   Tue Oct 11 14:27:29 2022 -0700
>>
>>              inet: ping: fix recent breakage
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> It still happens with a fresh 6.2rc build, unless I revert that commit.
>>
>> The /bin/traceroute is the one that calls itself "Modern traceroute for
>> Linux, version 2.1.1", on Arch Linux. It seems to use socket(AF_INET,
>> SOCK_DGRAM, IPPROTO_ICMP), has neither setuid nor file capabilities.
>> (The problem does not occur if I run it as root.)
>>
>> This version of `traceroute` sends multiple probes at once (with TTLs
>> 1..16); according to strace, the first approx. 8-12 probes are sent
>> successfully, but eventually sendto() fails with EHOSTUNREACH. (Though
>> if I run it on local tty as opposed to SSH, it fails earlier.) If I use
>> -N1 to have it only send one probe at a time, the problem doesn't seem
>> to occur.
> 
> 
> 
> I was not able to reproduce the issue (downloading
> https://sourceforge.net/projects/traceroute/files/latest/download)
> 
> I suspect some kind of bug in this traceroute, when/if some ICMP error
> comes back.
> 
> Double check by
> 
> tcpdump -i ethXXXX icmp
> 
> While you run traceroute -I ....

Hmm, no, the only ICMP errors I see in tcpdump are "Time exceeded in 
transit", which is expected for traceroute. Nothing else shows up.

(But when I test against an address that causes *real* ICMP "Host 
unreachable" errors, it seems to handle those correctly and prints "!H" 
as usual -- that is, if it reaches that point without dying.)

I was able to reproduce this on a fresh Linode 1G instance (starting 
with their Arch image), where it also happens immediately:

	# pacman -Sy archlinux-keyring
	# pacman -Syu
	# pacman -Sy traceroute strace
	# reboot
	# uname -r
	6.1.7-arch1-1
	# useradd foo
	# su -c "traceroute -I 8.8.8.8" foo
	traceroute to 8.8.8.8 (8.8.8.8), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
	 1  10.210.1.195 (10.210.1.195)  0.209 ms
	send: No route to host

So now I'm fairly sure it is not something caused by my own network, either.

On one system, it seems to work properly about half the time, if I keep 
re-running the same command.