On 01/28/2015 09:45 AM, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mi, 2015-01-28 at 09:16 -0500, Vlad Yasevich wrote:
>> On 01/28/2015 05:34 AM, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Mi, 2015-01-28 at 11:46 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 09:25:08AM +0100, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Di, 2015-01-27 at 18:08 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 05:02:31PM +0100, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
>>>>>>> On Di, 2015-01-27 at 09:26 -0500, Vlad Yasevich wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 01/27/2015 08:47 AM, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Di, 2015-01-27 at 10:42 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 02:47:54AM +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 2015-01-26 at 09:37 -0500, Vladislav Yasevich wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> If the IPv6 fragment id has not been set and we perform
>>>>>>>>>>>> fragmentation due to UFO, select a new fragment id.
>>>>>>>>>>>> When we store the fragment id into skb_shinfo, set the bit
>>>>>>>>>>>> in the skb so we can re-use the selected id.
>>>>>>>>>>>> This preserves the behavior of UFO packets generated on the
>>>>>>>>>>>> host and solves the issue of id generation for packet sockets
>>>>>>>>>>>> and tap/macvtap devices.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This patch moves ipv6_select_ident() back in to the header file.
>>>>>>>>>>>> It also provides the helper function that sets skb_shinfo() frag
>>>>>>>>>>>> id and sets the bit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It also makes sure that we select the fragment id when doing
>>>>>>>>>>>> just gso validation, since it's possible for the packet to
>>>>>>>>>>>> come from an untrusted source (VM) and be forwarded through
>>>>>>>>>>>> a UFO enabled device which will expect the fragment id.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> CC: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Vladislav Yasevich <vyasevic@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>>>> include/linux/skbuff.h | 3 ++-
>>>>>>>>>>>> include/net/ipv6.h | 2 ++
>>>>>>>>>>>> net/ipv6/ip6_output.c | 4 ++--
>>>>>>>>>>>> net/ipv6/output_core.c | 9 ++++++++-
>>>>>>>>>>>> net/ipv6/udp_offload.c | 10 +++++++++-
>>>>>>>>>>>> 5 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/skbuff.h b/include/linux/skbuff.h
>>>>>>>>>>>> index 85ab7d7..3ad5203 100644
>>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/include/linux/skbuff.h
>>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/include/linux/skbuff.h
>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -605,7 +605,8 @@ struct sk_buff {
>>>>>>>>>>>> __u8 ipvs_property:1;
>>>>>>>>>>>> __u8 inner_protocol_type:1;
>>>>>>>>>>>> __u8 remcsum_offload:1;
>>>>>>>>>>>> - /* 3 or 5 bit hole */
>>>>>>>>>>>> + __u8 ufo_fragid_set:1;
>>>>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Doesn't the flag belong in struct skb_shared_info, rather than struct
>>>>>>>>>>> sk_buff? Otherwise this looks fine.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ben.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hmm we seem to be out of tx flags.
>>>>>>>>>> Maybe ip6_frag_id == 0 should mean "not set".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Maybe that is the best idea. Definitely the ufo_fragid_set bit should
>>>>>>>>> move into the skb_shared_info area.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's what I originally wanted to do, but had to move and grow txflags thus
>>>>>>>> skb_shinfo ended up growing. I wanted to avoid that, so stole an skb flag.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I considered treating fragid == 0 as unset, but a 0 fragid is perfectly valid
>>>>>>>> from the protocol perspective and could actually be generated by the id generator
>>>>>>>> functions. This may cause us to call the id generation multiple times.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are there plans in the long run to let virtio_net transmit auxiliary
>>>>>>> data to the other end so we can clean all of this this up one day?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't like the whole situation: looking into the virtio_net headers
>>>>>>> just adding a field for ipv6 fragmentation ids to those small structs
>>>>>>> seems bloated, not doing it feels incorrect. :/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bye,
>>>>>>> Hannes
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not sure - what will be achieved by generating the IDs guest side as
>>>>>> opposed to host side? It's certainly harder to get hold of entropy
>>>>>> guest-side.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is not only about entropy but about uniqueness. Also fragmentation
>>>>> ids should not be discoverable,
>>>>
>>>> I belive "predictable" is the language used by the IETF draft.
>>>>
>>>>> so there are several aspects:
>>>>>
>>>>> I see fragmentation id generation still as security critical:
>>>>> When Eric patched the frag id generator in 04ca6973f7c1a0d ("ip: make IP
>>>>> identifiers less predictable") I could patch my kernels and use the
>>>>> patch regardless of the machine being virtualized or not. It was not
>>>>> dependent on the hypervisor.
>>>>
>>>> And now it's even easier - just patch the hypervisor, and all VMs
>>>> automatically benefit.
>>>
>>> Sometimes the hypervisor is not under my control. You would need to
>>> patch both kernels in your case - non gso frames would still get the
>>> fragmentation id generated in the host kernel.
>>
>> Why would non-gso frames need a frag id? We are talking only UDP IPv6
>> here, so there is no frag id generation if the packet does't need to
>> be fragmented.
>
> E.g. raw sockets still can generate fragments locally. It is also a
> valid setup to have multiple interfaces in one machine, one that is UFO
> enabled and one that isn't. In that case, fragmentation id generation
> happens on different hosts which I want to avoid.
OK, so you are concerned about both host and guest generating fragment
ids. Host would do it for GSO frames and guest would do it for fragmented
frames. Yes, there is room for collision, which is why we are aiming to
fix this with fragment id passing through virtio_net. However, I am still
trying to figure the best way to do this as it extends the virtio_net header
and we want to do it right.
>
> I haven't looked closely but mismatch of MTUs on interfaces seems like
> it could lead to unwanted fragmentation, e.g. see is_skb_forwardable
> which is mostly always true for gso frames, so we never stop them on
> bridges etc.
Yes, this is one of the cases that gets triggered with VMs.
>
>>>>> I think that is the same reasoning why we
>>>>> don't support TOE.
>>>>> If we use one generator in the hypervisor in an openstack alike setting,
>>>>> the host deals with quite a lot of overlay networks. A lot of default
>>>>> configurations use the same addresses internally, so on the hypervisor
>>>>> the frag id generators would interfere by design.
>>>>> I could come up with an attack scenario for DNS servers (again :) ):
>>>>>
>>>>> You are sitting next to a DNS server on the same hypervisor and can send
>>>>> packets without source validation (because that is handled later on in
>>>>> case of openvswitch when the packet is put into the corresponding
>>>>> overlay network). You emit a gso packet with the same source and
>>>>> destination addresses as the DNS server would do and would get an
>>>>> fragmentation id which is linearly (+ time delta) incremented depending
>>>>> on the source and destination address. With such a leak you could start
>>>>> trying attack and spoof DNS responses (fragmentation attacks etc.).
>>>>> See also details on such kind of attacks in the description of commit
>>>>> 04ca6973f7c1a0d.
>>>>>
>>>>> AFAIK IETF tried with IPv6 to push fragmentation id generation to the
>>>>> end hosts, that's also the reason for the introduction of atomic
>>>>> fragments (which are now being rolled back ;) ).
>>>>>
>>>>> Still it is better to generate a frag id on the hypervisor than just
>>>>> sending a 0, so I am ok with this change, albeit not happy.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Hannes
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> OK so to summarize, identifiers are only re-randomized once per jiffy,
>>>> so you worry that within this window, an external observer can discover
>>>> past fragment ID values and so predict the future ones.
>>>> All that's required is that two paths go through the same box performing
>>>> fragmentation.
>>>>
>>>> Is that a fair summary?
>>>>
>>>> If yes, we can make this a bit harder by mixing in some
>>>> data per input and/or output devices.
>>>>
>>>> For example, just to give you the idea:
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/net/core/dev.c b/net/core/dev.c
>>>> index 683d493..4faa7ef 100644
>>>> --- a/net/core/dev.c
>>>> +++ b/net/core/dev.c
>>>> @@ -3625,6 +3625,7 @@ static int __netif_receive_skb_core(struct sk_buff *skb, bool pfmemalloc)
>>>> trace_netif_receive_skb(skb);
>>>>
>>>> orig_dev = skb->dev;
>>>> + skb_shinfo(skb)->ip6_frag_id = skb->dev->ifindex;
>>>>
>>>> skb_reset_network_header(skb);
>>>> if (!skb_transport_header_was_set(skb))
>>>> diff --git a/net/ipv6/ip6_output.c b/net/ipv6/ip6_output.c
>>>> index ce69a12..819a821 100644
>>>> --- a/net/ipv6/ip6_output.c
>>>> +++ b/net/ipv6/ip6_output.c
>>>> @@ -1092,7 +1092,8 @@ static inline int ip6_ufo_append_data(struct sock *sk,
>>>> sizeof(struct frag_hdr)) & ~7;
>>>> skb_shinfo(skb)->gso_type = SKB_GSO_UDP;
>>>> ipv6_select_ident(&fhdr, rt);
>>>> - skb_shinfo(skb)->ip6_frag_id = fhdr.identification;
>>>> + skb_shinfo(skb)->ip6_frag_id = jhash_1word(skb_shinfo(skb)->ip6_frag_id,
>>>> + fhdr.identification);
>>>>
>>>> append:
>>>> return skb_append_datato_frags(sk, skb, getfrag, from,
>>>>
>>>
>>> I thought about mixing in the incoming interface identifier into the
>>> frag id generation, but that could hurt us badly as soon as a VM has
>>> more than one interface to the outside world and uses e.g. ECMP. We need
>>> to make sure that those frag ids are unique and the kernel needs to be
>>> better than just using a random number generator.
>>>
>>
>> So the goal behind this series of patches is to restore VM functionality to
>> pre-916e4cf46d0204 ("ipv6: reuse ip6_frag_id from ip6_ufo_append_data").
>
> I understand (the patch fixed a NULL ptr deref btw.).
>
> As I said, I don't want to stop this series (hopefully the flag can be
> moved into skb_shared_info etc.), would look after that IMHO
> (skb flags/IPCB and skb_shared_info have different semantics on
> __skb_clone).
>
> I think it is very much worth to try to move the fragmentation id
> generation back to the end host and only use this as a fallback.
I think we are in agreement here.
-vlad
>
> Bye,
> Hannes
>
>
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
