netdev - Re: [devel-ipsec] [RFC ipsec-next v2 0/8] Add IP-TFS mode to xfrm

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: <m2edcmz3ok.fsf@ja.int.chopps.org>
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2024 06:05:37 -0500
From: Christian Hopps <chopps@...pps.org>
To: Antony Antony <antony@...nome.org>
Cc: Christian Hopps <chopps@...pps.org>, devel@...ux-ipsec.org,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, Christian Hopps <chopps@...n.net>, Steffen
 Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
Subject: Re: [devel-ipsec] [RFC ipsec-next v2 0/8] Add IP-TFS mode to xfrm


Antony Antony <antony@...nome.org> writes:

> On Sun, Nov 12, 2023 at 10:52:11PM -0500, Christian Hopps via Devel wrote:
>> From: Christian Hopps <chopps@...n.net>
>>
>> This patchset adds a new xfrm mode implementing on-demand IP-TFS. IP-TFS
>> (AggFrag encapsulation) has been standardized in RFC9347.
>>
>> Link: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9347.txt
>>
>> This feature supports demand driven (i.e., non-constant send rate) IP-TFS to
>> take advantage of the AGGFRAG ESP payload encapsulation. This payload type
>> supports aggregation and fragmentation of the inner IP packet stream which in
>> turn yields higher small-packet bandwidth as well as reducing MTU/PMTU issues.
>> Congestion control is unimplementated as the send rate is demand driven rather
>> than constant.
>>
>> In order to allow loading this fucntionality as a module a set of callbacks
>> xfrm_mode_cbs has been added to xfrm as well.
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> I have further reviewed the code and have a few minor questions, mainly
> related to handling of XFRM_MODE_IPTFS. It appears to me be either some case
> missing support or/and in a few places it should be prohibited. I have three
> types of questions:
>
> 1. missing XFRM_MODE_IPTFS support?
> 2. Will XFRM_MODE_IPTFS be supported this combination?
> 3. Should be prohibited combination with XFRM_MODE_IPTFS
>
> 1.  Missing:
>
> a.  wouldn't xfrm_sa_len() need extending?
>
> I could not find support for XFRM_MODE_IPTFS explicitly.
>
> However, I'm not sure how the following code is working when xfrm_sa_len is
> missing IP-TFS xfrm_sa_len:
>
> copy_to_user_state_extra() {
>     if (x->mode_cbs && x->mode_cbs->copy_to_user)
>         ret = x->mode_cbs->copy_to_user(x, skb);
> }
>
> I have attached what I imagine is a fix. Check with Steffen or others if
> this is necessary.

I have adopted this change with a couple small changes, thanks!

> b. esp6_init_state() and esp_init_state():
> These functions do not seem to handle XFRM_MODE_IPTFS. Would they default to work with it?

That's b/c IPTFS uses ESP w/o modification. IP-TFS makes its own mode based changes (similar to what `esp_init_state()` does) in it's `create_state` callback which like `esp_init_state()` is called from `__xfrm_init_state()`.

> 2. Would xfrm4_outer_mode_gso_segment() xfrm6_outer_mode_gso_segment():
> support XFRM_MODE_IPTFS?
> These functions appear to be missing. Is it possible that you don't support GSO and GRO?

Correct.

> 3: Shouldn't these combinations return error?
>
> a. ipcomp and  XFRM_MODE_IPTFS
> I'm guessing that ipcomp would generate an error when userspace tries to add an SA with XFRM_MODE_IPTFS.
> ipcomp6_init_state()
> ipcomp4_init_state()

Correct.

> b: In xfrm_state_construct():
>
> if (attrs[XFRMA_TFCPAD])
>     x->tfcpad = nla_get_u32(attrs[XFRMA_TFCPAD]);

Can you explain this more?

Thanks,
Chris.

>
> -antony
>
> [2. text/plain; 0001-xfrm-iptfs-extend-xfrm_sa_len.patch]...


Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (858 bytes)