From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
To: Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net,
kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru, jmorris@namei.org, yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org,
kaber@trash.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipv4: remove ip_rt_secret timer
Date: Thu, 06 May 2010 20:33:33 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1273170813.2222.10.camel@edumazet-laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100506180233.GB5063@hmsreliant.think-freely.org>
Le jeudi 06 mai 2010 à 14:02 -0400, Neil Horman a écrit :
> On Thu, May 06, 2010 at 07:32:35PM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > Le jeudi 06 mai 2010 à 13:16 -0400, Neil Horman a écrit :
> > > A while back there was a discussion regarding the rt_secret_interval timer.
> > > Given that we've had the ability to do emergency route cache rebuilds for awhile
> > > now, based on a statistical analysis of the various hash chain lengths in the
> > > cache, the use of the flush timer is somewhat redundant. This patch removes the
> > > rt_secret_interval sysctl, allowing us to rely solely on the statistical
> > > analysis mechanism to determine the need for route cache flushes.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Nice cleanup try Neil, but this gives to attackers more time to hit the
> > cache (infinite time should be enough as a matter of fact ;) )
> >
> Not sure I follow what your complaint is. I get that this gives attackers
> plenty of time to try to attack the cache, but thats rather the point of the
> statistics gathering for the cache, and why I don't think we need the secret
> timer any more. With the statistical analysis we do on the route cache every
> gc cycle, we can tell if an attacker has guessed our rt_genid value, and is
> making any chains in the cache abnormally long. Thats when we do the rebuild,
> modifying the rt_genid, forcing the attacker to re-discover it (which should be
> difficult). Theres no need to change this periodically if you're not being
> attacked.
>
> > Hints :
> >
> > - What is the initial value of rt_genid ?
> >
> > - How/When is it changed (full 32 bits are changed or small
> > perturbations ? check rt_cache_invalidate())
> >
> /*
> * Pertubation of rt_genid by a small quantity [1..256]
> * Using 8 bits of shuffling ensure we can call rt_cache_invalidate()
> * many times (2^24) without giving recent rt_genid.
> * Jenkins hash is strong enough that litle changes of rt_genid are OK.
> */
> static void rt_cache_invalidate(struct net *net)
> {
> unsigned char shuffle;
>
> get_random_bytes(&shuffle, sizeof(shuffle));
> atomic_add(shuffle + 1U, &net->ipv4.rt_genid);
> }
>
> Clearly, its small changes. To paraphrase the comment, Changes to rt_genid are
> small enough to be confident that we don't repetatively use a gen_id often, but
> sufficiently random that attackers cannot easily guess the next gen_id based on
> the current value. Both the timer and the statistics code use this invalidation
> technique previously, and the latter continues to do so.
>
> I've not changed anything regarding how we
> invalidate, only when we choose to invalidate. Invalidation can lead to
> slowdowns during routing, since it send frames through the slow path after an
> invalidation. It behooves us to avoid preforming this invalidation without
> need, and since we have a mechanism in place to do that invalidation specfically
> when we need to, lets get rid of the code that handles that, and make it a bit
> cleaner. If there are users that feel strongly that they need to defend against
> potential attacks by periodically changing their rt_genid, its still possible.
> Its as simple as putting:
> echo -1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/route/flush
> in a cron job.
>
I have some customers that will simply kill me if their routing cache is
disabled by a smart attack, slowing down their server by a 4x factor.
I know its possible, it has been done.
For a quiet machine possible rt_genid values range are known from
attacker, and hash size is also known. Thats really too easy for the bad
guys...
Neil, I think your cleanup should stay a cleanup for the moment, or you
must make sure rt_genid initial value is not 0 (read your patch
again...)
I agree we dont need anymore the complex timer logic. We could keep the
secret_interval (default to 0 if you really want) and force a
rt_cache_invalidate() call once in a while from the periodic
rt_check_expire() for example.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-05-06 18:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-05-06 17:16 [PATCH] ipv4: remove ip_rt_secret timer Neil Horman
2010-05-06 17:32 ` Eric Dumazet
2010-05-06 18:02 ` Neil Horman
2010-05-06 18:33 ` Eric Dumazet [this message]
2010-05-06 19:54 ` Neil Horman
2010-05-06 20:10 ` Eric Dumazet
2010-05-06 20:25 ` Neil Horman
2010-05-06 20:29 ` [PATCH] ipv4: remove ip_rt_secret timer (v2) Neil Horman
2010-05-06 21:08 ` Eric Dumazet
2010-05-07 0:02 ` nhorman
2010-05-07 19:55 ` [PATCH] ipv4: remove ip_rt_secret timer (v3) Neil Horman
2010-05-07 21:04 ` Eric Dumazet
2010-05-07 23:15 ` Neil Horman
2010-05-08 1:01 ` [PATCH] ipv4: remove ip_rt_secret timer (v4) Neil Horman
2010-05-08 6:36 ` Eric Dumazet
2010-05-08 8:58 ` David Miller
2010-05-08 12:54 ` Neil Horman
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1273170813.2222.10.camel@edumazet-laptop \
--to=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=kaber@trash.net \
--cc=kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nhorman@tuxdriver.com \
--cc=yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox